Nix V. Williams

Case CitationNix v. Williams 467 U. S. 431 (1984) Facts In 1968, 10 family old Pamela Powers was abducted and murdered outside of the YMCA in stilboestrol Moines, Iowa. A youthful boy claimed to permit seen Williams, outside the YMCA carrying a bundle wrapped in a blanket with two white legs hanging out. The following daytime Williams, car was spotted approximately 160 miles outside of Des Moines. Additionally, several(prenominal) of the young lady friends clothing items were found. Along with Williams and with the blanket as described by the witness.Based upon these findings, a warrant was issued for Williams arrest. While a essay was under way, Williams surrendered to the Davenport police, and obtained counsel. Des Moines police advised Williams counsel that they would not question him while transporting him cover version to Des Moines. However during transport, one of the incumbents began a conversation with Williams, and urged him to tell them where the personify was l ocated, so she could cast off a proper Christian burial. Williams conceded, and directed them to the girls personify, which was over two miles from the closest search team. Procedural storey Williams filed a motion to suppress the endorse of the body, because it was obtained as fruit of an unconventional interrogation. The motor inn denied this motion, and Williams was subsequently convicted by a jury of first score murder. The trial philander denied the motion, and a jury convicted Williams of first-degree murder.Williamss state attract was affirmed by The Iowa self-governing chat up. Williams then petitioned the United States District greet for the Southern District of Iowa for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court change the conviction. The court held that the secern should grant been suppressed. During Williams second trial, the criminal prosecution did not offer evidence of the interrogation however evidence was presented in regards to the condition of the vict ims body.The trial court allowed this evidence, and concluded that the prosecution had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the victims body would have been discovered without Williams help. Williams was again convicted by a second jury and sentenced to life in prison. Upon another appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the conviction and the U. S. District Court denied habeas corpus relief. The U. S. Court of Appeals reverse the district courts denial of habeas corpus. The matter then came up before the Supreme Court in certiorari.Issue Should illegally obtained evidence become admissible in state court if it would have been in the long run discovered by rule-governed means? Holding Yes. Evidence that is obtained through felonious police parcel out that would have been discovered inevitably during the course of an investigation does not have to be excluded from trial Reasoning Justice Burger wrote the decision of the Court, joined by Justice White, Justice Blackmu n, Justice Powell, Justice Rehnquist and Justice OConnor, and reversed the decision of the appellant court. 1. The Inevit fitting Discovery Rule If the prosecution is able to establish through a preponderance of evidence that the information ultimately would have been discovered lawfully, then the evidence should be allowed. It was inevitable that the body would have been found. If Williams had not led the police to the victims body, the search teams would have eventually discovered the body. The body was located only 2 and half miles away from where the nearest search team originally started looking. 2. ) expulsion would not result in fairness.Evidence has demonstrated that at the time of unconstitutional interrogation, a search was already in place for the victim, and the body would have inevitably been found. This means had there not be illegal broadcast by the police officers, the fairness of the trial would have remained the same. 3. ) Absence of freehanded reliance is not required The justices held that in order to establish the admissibility of evidence, the prosecution does not need to carry the burden of proving the absence of bad faith to secure the evidenceConcurrence Justices White concurred with the holdings, but added that the police officers action was not unlawful or unconstitutional Justice Stevens, concurred with the holding, however advised that the police officers conduct was unconstitutional however because the body would have been discovered anyway the prosecution should be held harmless. Dissent Justices Brennan and Marshall both dissented stating that though the inevitable discovery doctrine is constitution, the prosecution had the burden of prove that the evidence would have been discovered if an ndependent investigation were allowed to be proceed. Comments This case resulted in the man of the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. However I believe that it undermines the fruit of the savage tree doctrine, and enable law enforcement misc onduct. The justices stated that the evidence supports that body would have been found with or without a confession. One might argue that a correctional officer can beat an inmate that is on final stage penalty to death, because he was going to be killed by the state anyway.