Procedural History
499 U.S. 279 (1991)
This case addresses the admissibility of confessions obtained through coercion and the impact of such confessions on the trial process.
Source: 499 U.S. 279 (1991)
Action: Fulminante is charged with murder and allegedly confesses to an informant while in prison.
Outcome: The confession is admitted at trial.
Significance: The admission of the confession hinges on questions of voluntariness and coercion in obtaining the statement.
Action: Fulminante appeals his conviction, arguing that the confession was coerced and thus inadmissible.
Outcome: The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's decision to admit the confession.
Significance: The appellate court’s ruling raises fundamental issues regarding the protection against self-incrimination.
Action: Fulminante's appeal is reviewed by the state supreme court.
Outcome: The Supreme Court of Arizona upholds the conviction despite recognizing issues with the confession.
Significance: This decision sets the stage for further review on constitutional grounds by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Action: The U.S. Supreme Court hears Fulminante's case regarding the admission of the coerced confession.
Outcome: The Court rules in a split decision that the introduction of the confession was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The ruling clarifies the standard for determining when a coerced confession can lead to reversible error.
When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, it was on appeal from the state supreme court affirming the conviction based largely on the admission of the confession, raising critical questions about procedural safeguards against self-incrimination.
The standard of review applied was to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the confession despite the alleged coercion.
The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the confession was inadmissible, leading to the reversal of Fulminante's conviction.