## Facts

- A 10-year-old girl disappeared in Des Moines, Iowa; evidence connected Robert Anthony Williams to the disappearance.
- After an arrest warrant issued, Williams surrendered in Davenport, Iowa, after consulting with counsel and being advised not to discuss the case without an attorney.
- Williams was arraigned in Davenport and represented by local counsel; both local counsel and Williams’s Des Moines counsel instructed that Williams was not to be questioned until he consulted with the Des Moines attorney.
- Police agreed that there would be no questioning during the 160-mile transport from Davenport to Des Moines.
- During the drive, a detective—knowing Williams was deeply religious—made an emotional appeal about locating the child’s body so her parents could give her a “Christian burial.”
- Williams then made incriminating statements and directed officers to the child’s body, which had not previously been found.
- At trial for first-degree murder, Williams moved to suppress the car-ride statements and derivative evidence, arguing a Sixth Amendment counsel violation.
- The trial court denied suppression on a finding of waiver; Williams was convicted, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.
- On federal habeas corpus, the district court granted relief (no waiver; Sixth Amendment violation), and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, after adversary judicial proceedings had begun, police violated the Sixth Amendment by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from Williams during transport in the absence of counsel.
2. Whether Williams waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel before making the statements and leading police to the body.
3. Whether the federal habeas court improperly failed to defer to state-court factual determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of habeas relief in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that police violated Williams’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements after arraignment and after counsel had been engaged for the charged offense.
- The Court held that the State did not meet its burden to show that Williams waived the right to counsel.
- The Court rejected the State’s § 2254(d) argument, concluding the federal courts’ findings were consistent with the state record and adequately supported.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches once adversary judicial proceedings have begun (including after arraignment), and it applies to police efforts to obtain incriminating statements about the charged offense.
- Police violate the Sixth Amendment when they deliberately elicit incriminating information from an accused in the absence of counsel, even without asking direct questions.
- The State bears the burden to prove waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
- A defendant’s prior invocation of counsel and police assurances that no questioning will occur weigh strongly against finding a valid waiver based on later statements during police-initiated interaction.
- On federal habeas review, a court may rely on the state-court record and make additional supported findings so long as it does not make factual findings contrary to those of the state courts within the meaning of § 2254(d).

## Conclusion

Because Williams had been arraigned and had secured counsel, the detective’s deliberate effort to obtain incriminating information during transport violated the Sixth Amendment, and the State failed to prove a valid waiver; the resulting habeas relief was properly affirmed.


Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977)