 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Watts v. Indiana" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(February 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Watts v. Indiana | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 25, 1949 Decided June 27, 1949 | |
| Full case name | Watts v. Indiana |
| Citations | 338U.S.49 (more) 69 S. Ct. 1347; 93L. Ed. 1801; 1949U.S. LEXIS 2080 |
| Holding | |
| The use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Frankfurter, joined by Murphy, Rutledge |
| Concurrence | Black |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concur/dissent | Jackson |
| Dissent | Vinson, Reed, Burton |
Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates theFourteenth Amendment.[1]
In his concurrence/dissent,Justice Robert Jackson famously opined, "To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that, in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem. Under this conception of criminal procedure, any lawyerworth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."
In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorousinterrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in aconfession to having committedmurder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction.
Thurgood Marshall represented the defendant, Robert A. Watts, inWatts v. Indiana.[2]
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theStone Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |