COLORADO V.
CONNELLY
Argued October 8, 1986
Decided December 10, 1986
Brianna Rippin & Kelsie Fellows
DISPUTED ISSUE
The issue being argued in this case is whether or not
the mental condition of the respondent makes his
confession admissible to the court.
Important Figures in the Case
Officer Patrick Anderson
Respondent Francis
Connelly
Detective Stephen
Antuna
Dr. Metzner
RELEVANT CASE FACTS
 Respondent walks up to an off duty officer and admits that he
committed a murder
 Officer immediately advises Respondent of his Miranda Rights
 The officer established a good current mental condition, and
that the Respondent had previously been in a mental hospital
 Detective soon arrived and repeated Miranda rights to the
Respondent
 Respondent admits that he went from Boston to Denver to
murdered Marry Ann Junta in November 1982
 Police located records of an unidentified murdered girl found
April 1983
RELEVANT CASE FACTS CONT…
 Respondent gave detailed story of the murder to the Detective




and Sargent
Under directions of respondent they went to the crime scene
and the Respondent pointed out the location of the murder,
showed no sign of mental illness at the time.
Respondent was held overnight then during an interview
became disoriented and claimed that he had been following
the word of God
Respondent went to a state mental hospital and was
diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, he has also been in a
psychotic state since August 17, 1983
God had told him to get money, buy a plane ticket to Denver
(from Boston), then admit to his previous murder or commit
suicide
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR
PROSECUTION
 Originally when the Respondent brought fourth his confession he was
alerted to his Miranda rights and claimed a clear under standing which
implies a clear mental focus.
 When asked the Respondent denied any affiliation with drugs and or
alcohol.

The Respondent travelled from Boston to Denver, the length of time that
elapsed indicates that his mental state was constant for an extended
period of time.
 In March 1984 doctors determined that the Respondent was competent
enough to proceed to trial.
 Dr. Metzner (psychiatrist employed by state hospital) determined that the
Respondent’s illness did not significantly impair his cognitive abilities, so
he did understand the rights he had when he approached Officer
Anderson
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION
CONT…
 Dr. Metzner also concluded that the voices that the Respondent
claims to hear may be his interpretation of his own guilt not a mental
sickness.
 The Colorado Trial Court declared that there was
 No police over-reaching or forced confession
 No development of mental disability due to police over-reaching
 No compulsory self-incrimination
 Evidence of the Respondent’s Preponderance of knowledge of
information relating to his Miranda Rights means that the defendant
has enough knowledge of his Miranda rights to comply with the
required burden of proof to show that he understood them in mental
capacity
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE
 During the Respondent’s initial incident with Officer, he
admitted to having previously been in several mental hospitals.
 Respondent is visibly disoriented during interview then stated
that voices had told him to come to Denver and confess.
 The Respondent was initially found incompetent to assist in
his own defense
 Psychiatrist from state hospital diagnose the Respondent with
chronic schizophrenia and explain that he was following the
“voice of God” .
 The Respondent was reluctant to follow God’s command to
confess but did because his only other option was suicide.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE
CONT…
 The Colorado Trial Court said the Respondent’s statement was
involuntary and should be suppressed. (see last paragraph of
146 for explanation)
 According to Brown v. Mississippi the courts have found the
mental condition of the defendant to be more significant that
the “voluntariness” of the confession.
 Blackburn v. Alabama and Townsend v. Sain, deficient mental
condition of the defendants in both cases was sufficient to
render the confessions involuntary.
 Supreme Court relies on court appointed psychiatrist to the
effect that respondent was not capable of making a “free
decision” with respect to his constitution as right of silences
FINAL COURT RULING AND
REASONING
The court ruled to suppress the
confession because according to the
court appointed psychiatrist the
respondent's mental condition
interfered with his “rational intellect”
and “free will”
HOW THIS RELATES TO OUR CASE
Final decision of the court supports
the Defense's argument because it
shows how mental deficiencies can
render a confession invalid.