## Facts

- Vincent Joseph Spano, a 25-year-old with limited education and no prior criminal record, fought with a former professional boxer who assaulted him.
- After the fight, Spano went home, obtained a gun, and later shot the boxer multiple times, killing him.
- Spano evaded authorities for about a week and was indicted for first-degree murder; a bench warrant issued.
- Spano told a longtime friend, Gaspar Bruno (a police academy student), that he planned to get a lawyer and surrender; Bruno relayed this to police.
- Spano surrendered with counsel; his attorney advised him not to answer questions and then left.
- Police questioned Spano for nearly eight hours overnight; he initially refused to answer and repeatedly requested to consult his attorney, but police denied the requests.
- Officers directed Bruno to pressure Spano by falsely claiming that Bruno would lose his job and his family would suffer unless Spano cooperated.
- After multiple appeals by Bruno and continued interrogation, Spano agreed to give a statement and made inculpatory remarks; a written confession and related statements followed.
- At trial, the confession was admitted over objection with a jury instruction to consider it only if voluntary; Spano was convicted and sentenced to death. New York’s highest court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Spano’s confession, obtained after indictment through prolonged questioning, denial of access to counsel, and deceptive psychological pressure using a friend, was involuntary under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether admission of that confession at trial violated due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The Court held that, under the totality of circumstances, Spano’s will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused.
- Because the confession was not voluntary, its admission in evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court did not base its decision on the Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel ground, though concurring Justices would have.

## Legal Principles

- A confession is inadmissible under the Fourteenth Amendment if, considering the totality of circumstances, it is not the product of a free and rational choice.
- The Court independently reviews the record to determine whether a confession was voluntary for due process purposes.
- Post-indictment interrogation practices are assessed in context, including the suspect’s retention of counsel and repeated requests to consult counsel.
- Extended, continuous questioning combined with denial of access to counsel and deceptive psychological tactics can overbear a suspect’s will and render a confession involuntary.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Spano’s conviction because the State used prolonged post-indictment interrogation, refused repeated requests for counsel, and employed deceptive manipulation through a friend, producing an involuntary confession whose admission violated due process.


Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959)