Haynes v. Washington

Raymond Haynes (plaintiff) was arrested for robbery, taken to the police station, and subjected to three interrogations without being allowed to contact either his wife or an attorney, despite repeated requests. Haynes was not informed that he had the right to remain silent or that any statements he made could be used against him. Haynes had a criminal record and had served time in prison on a prior charge. The police told Haynes that he would be allowed to call his wife if he confessed. Haynes made incriminating statements in all three interrogations, the latter two of which were transcribed. Haynes signed the transcript of the second interrogation based on the police officers’ promise that he could contact his wife if he signed it. The officers reneged on that promise, and Haynes then refused to sign the transcript of the third interrogation. After Haynes’s preliminary hearing, which did not occur until after Haynes had signed the transcript of the second interrogation, Haynes was returned to jail and held in incommunicado detention. Haynes was not allowed to contact his wife until nearly one week after his arrest. Haynes was ultimately convicted after a jury trial. Haynes appealed his conviction, arguing that, under the Due Process Clause, his incriminating statements were involuntary and should not have been admitted as evidence. Haynes did not deny his guilt and challenged the conviction solely on procedural grounds.