noncustodial

On August 5, 1999, Michael Crawford stabbed Kenneth Lee in the torso during a confrontation at Lee's apartment. Crawford and his wife Sylvia had gone there after Sylvia alleged that Lee had attempted to rape her several weeks earlier. Lee was taken to the hospital and later died from his wounds. Police arrested both Crawford and Sylvia that night. Detectives gave Miranda warnings and interrogated Sylvia twice at the station house. In her recorded statement Sylvia initially denied involvement but eventually admitted she had led Crawford to Lee's apartment and had seen the stabbing. Crawford also gave police a statement describing the events and his belief that Lee may have reached for something before the stabbing. At trial Crawford asserted self-defense, but Sylvia did not testify because of Washington's marital privilege. The State offered Sylvia's tape-recorded statement as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense and invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. The trial court admitted the statement after finding it bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The jury convicted Crawford of assault. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed after applying a nine-factor test and concluding the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. It determined that Sylvia's statement interlocked with Crawford's statement and therefore bore adequate guarantees of trustworthiness, noting that both accounts were ambiguous on whether Lee had possessed a weapon. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In November 1984, Richard Stephenson was murdered in a suburb of East St. Louis, Illinois, and the murder remained unsolved for over a year. In March 1986, Donald Charlton, an inmate at the Graham Correctional Facility serving a sentence for burglary, told police he had learned about a homicide from fellow inmate Lloyd Perkins, and Charlton provided details that police recognized as matching the Stephenson murder. Perkins had been released from Graham by that time. Police traced him to the Montgomery County jail, where he was being held pending trial on a charge of aggravated battery unrelated to the Stephenson murder. The police wanted to investigate Perkins' connection to the murder further, but they decided to place an undercover agent in the cellblock with Perkins and Charlton rather than use an eavesdropping device. Undercover agent John Parisi, using the alias Vito Bianco, and Charlton were placed in the cellblock with Perkins. Both were clothed in jail garb and posed as escapees from a work release program who had been arrested during a burglary. The cellblock consisted of 12 separate cells opening onto a common room. Parisi suggested the three of them escape, and respondent replied that the jail was rinky-dink and they could break out. Later that evening the trio met in Perkins' cell to refine their plan. Perkins said his girlfriend could smuggle in a pistol. After Charlton said he was a burglar and not a murderer, Parisi asked Perkins if he had ever done anybody, and Perkins proceeded to describe at length the events of the Stephenson murder. Parisi did not give Perkins Miranda warnings before the conversations. Perkins was charged with the Stephenson murder. Before trial he moved to suppress the statements made to Parisi. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the Miranda issue.

In January 1972 a paternity action was instituted against Roger G. Redhail in Milwaukee County Court alleging that he was the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock on July 5, 1971. After Redhail admitted paternity the court entered an order on May 12, 1972 adjudging him the father and ordering him to pay $109 per month as support until the child reached age eighteen. From May 1972 until August 1974 Redhail was unemployed and indigent and consequently was unable to make any support payments. As of December 1974 there was an arrearage in excess of $3,700. The child had been a public charge since her birth receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In September 1974 Redhail applied for a marriage license in Milwaukee County. County Clerk Thomas E. Zablocki denied the application because Redhail had not obtained a court order pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 245.10(1). Redhail would not have been able to satisfy either statutory prerequisite for permission to marry. After the license denial Redhail filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that the statute violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. The plaintiff class was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). After the parties filed a stipulation of facts and briefs were submitted the three-judge court held the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its enforcement. Zablocki brought a direct appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed the District Court judgment.

In July 1978 respondent Susan Clay, then known as Susan Thompson, filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking dissolution of her marriage to petitioner David Thompson and custody of their infant son Matthew. The court initially awarded the parents joint custody of Matthew. After respondent decided to move from California to Louisiana, the California court entered an order granting her sole custody of Matthew upon her departure. This order was to remain in effect until a court investigator submitted a custody report. Respondent and Matthew moved to Louisiana in December 1980. Three months later respondent filed a petition in Louisiana state court for enforcement of the California custody decree and for sole custody, which the Louisiana court granted on April 7, 1981. Two months after that the California court awarded sole custody to petitioner. In August 1983 petitioner brought this action in the District Court for the Central District of California. He requested a declaration that the Louisiana decree was invalid and the California decree valid, and sought an injunction against enforcement of the Louisiana decree. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.