## Facts

- Cicenia was indicted in New Jersey for first-degree murder arising from a 1947 robbery and killing of a Newark shopkeeper.
- Before arrest, Cicenia retained counsel and voluntarily reported to police on counsel’s advice.
- While in custody, state police conducted extended questioning.
- During interrogation, Cicenia repeatedly requested to see his attorney, and the attorney repeatedly sought access; police denied both until after Cicenia gave and signed a written confession.
- In state court, Cicenia sought production and inspection of the written confession before entering a plea of *non vult*; the trial court denied the request and the conviction was sustained on appeal.
- Cicenia sought federal habeas relief, claiming Fourteenth Amendment due process violations based on coercion, denial of access to counsel during interrogation, and denial of pre-plea access to the confession.

## Issues

1. Whether the interrogation circumstances rendered Cicenia’s confession involuntary, making the conviction inconsistent with Fourteenth Amendment due process.
2. Whether police refusal to permit consultation with retained counsel during custodial interrogation, standing alone, violated due process.
3. Whether the trial court’s refusal to allow inspection of the written confession before entry of the plea violated due process absent a showing of prejudice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief in a 5–3 decision.
- The Court held the record did not substantiate that the confession was coerced.
- The Court held refusal to permit consultation with counsel during questioning did not, by itself, violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court held that, without a showing of prejudice, denial of pre-plea inspection of the written confession did not deny due process.

## Legal Principles

- A confession’s admissibility under the Fourteenth Amendment turns on voluntariness assessed under the totality of the circumstances; denial of counsel during interrogation is a factor, not an automatic bar.
- Due process does not require, as a categorical rule, that a suspect be allowed to consult retained counsel during custodial interrogation.
- A trial court’s refusal to allow a defendant to inspect a written confession before pleading does not violate due process absent a showing that the denial caused actual prejudice or rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the conviction because Cicenia failed to prove coercion, the denial of access to counsel during interrogation was not itself a due process violation, and the denial of pre-plea inspection of the confession did not amount to a constitutional deprivation without demonstrated prejudice.


Cicenia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958)