Oregon v. Bradshaw

LOCATION: Dr. Simopoulos’ Clinic

DOCKET NO.: 81-1857
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 462 US 1039 (1983)
ARGUED: Mar 28, 1983
DECIDED: Jun 23, 1983

David B. Frohnmayer - on behalf of the Petitioner
Gary D. Babcock - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case


Media for Oregon v. Bradshaw

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 28, 1983 in Oregon v. Bradshaw

Warren E. Burger:

We will hear argument next in Oregon versus Bradshaw.

Mr. Frohnmayer, I think you may proceed whenever you are ready.

David B. Frohnmayer:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Today, the state of Oregon asks this Court to finetune a salutary rule in order to make it more workable in the real world.

The question is whether Miranda versus Arizona allows reasonable police investigation into serious crime, including allowing the innocent to clear their names from suspicion, or whether the Miranda and Edwards doctrines will be misconstrued to imprison potential suspects in a web of their privileges or prohibit them from changing their minds.

This case is here today because the Oregon Court of Appeals overextended Edwards versus Arizona and distorted the very protections this Court established in Miranda versus Arizona.

The facts, I believe, may be briefly summarized.

Bradshaw's contact with law enforcement authorities arose both because he was a suspect in a vehicular homicide and because he claimed to have been the victim of a criminal assault.

At the request of the Oregon state police, he answered questions about inconsistencies between the story he had volunteered and the accounts of other witnesses.

Prior to this questioning, he was advised of his Miranda rights and he was told that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave.

Based on certain admissions that Bradshaw made during questioning at the Rockaway police station, Corporal Hays then placed him under arrest for furnishing liquor to a minor and advised him again of his Miranda rights.

Shortly thereafter, when Corporal Hays suggested to the accused a theory that Bradshaw had been the driver of the car and was responsible for the homicide, Bradshaw stated he wanted an attorney

"before it goes very much further. "

The interview was promptly terminated and Bradshaw was transported to Tillamook county jail for booking.

At some point during this process, Bradshaw asked the question,

"Well, what is going to happen to me now? "

The testimony is unchallenged that Corporal Hays then immediately reminded the accused of his right to counsel and that he did not have to talk.

Bradshaw stated, "I understand".

John Paul Stevens:

May I interrupt with one question?

Does the record tell us when he first got the assistance of counsel?

David B. Frohnmayer:

As far as the record is clear, Your Honor, he first received actual counsel sometime after his arraignment the following day.

There is no point in this exchange I've described at which counsel was available.

John Paul Stevens:

Is there any evidence that the state made any effort to get him counsel before that time?

David B. Frohnmayer:

There is evidence that the state... there is not only evidence, there is testimony by Corporal Hays that he suggested that he call an attorney and Corporal Hays further testified that he believed that there was time for him during his stay at the station house to have called an attorney.

And the record also shows that the police contacted, at the request of the accused, Bradshaw, a person by the name of Irma Stockdale, but beyond that, the record is silent with respect to--

John Paul Stevens:

Well, was he represented by retained counsel in the proceeding that followed?

David B. Frohnmayer:

--I do not believe so, no.

John Paul Stevens:

He was represented by appointed counsel?

David B. Frohnmayer:

Yes, sir.

John Paul Stevens:

And so... but no effort was made to obtain appointed counsel until after his arraignment, is that right?