7.2: Wong Sun v. United States
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Wong Sun and James Wah Toy United States
LOCATION
James Wah Toy’s Laundry
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
36 Warren Court
LOWER COURT
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CITATION
371 US 471 (1963)
ARGUED
Mar 28, 1962 / Apr 01, 1962
REARGUED
Oct 8, 1962
DECIDED
Jan 14, 1963
GRANTED
Oct 9, 1961
ADVOCATES
Edward Bennett Williams acting under appointment by the Court, for the petitioners
Archibald Cox Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States
Facts of the case
Police arrested Hom Way for possession of heroin. While under arrest, Way told police that a man named “Blackie Toy” once sold him an ounce of heroin at his laundry on Leavenworth St. Later that day, police found a laundry run by James Wah Toy. Nothing on the record identified Toy as “Blackie Toy”, but police arrested him anyway. Police then went to Toy’s house where they arrested Johnny Yee and found several tubes containing less than one ounce of heroin. Police also arrested Wong Sun. Police interrogated the men and wrote statements in English for them to sign. Both men refused, citing errors in the statements. At trial in U.S. District Court, Toy and Sun were convicted on federal narcotics charges. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Question
- Were the petitioners' arrests lawful?
- Were the petitioners' unsigned statements admissible as evidence?
Conclusion
5–4 DECISION FOR WONG SUN MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR.
| FOR | AGAINST |
|---|---|
|
Douglas Black Goldberg Warren Brennan |
White Clark Harlan Stewart |
Prejudicial error at trial may have considered each petitioner's statement as corroboration of the other petitioner's guilt No, No. In a 5-4 decision, Justice William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court and remanding for a new trial. The Supreme Court held that the police did not have probable cause to justify the arrests. With regard to Toy, the court should exclude all evidence found during the search because they are the “fruits” of an unlawful search. The unsigned statement was not corroborated, so it gave no basis for conviction. Sun’s unsigned confession and evidence against him were admissible. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissent, stating that the arrests were lawful and there was no reason to grant Sun a new trial. Justices James M. Harlan, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White joined in the dissent.