Per Curiam.
Petitioner was charged with two burglaries and one attempted burglary. He entered pleas of not guilty to each count. Before trial, petitioner requested a hearing on the voluntariness of certain oral admissions and a written confession he had given while in police custody. The hearing was held and the trial court found that the statements had been voluntarily made. Petitioner waived jury trial. The statements were admitted in evidence and he was convicted on all three counts. On each of them he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not more than five years, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on appeal, affirmed the convictions. It agreed with the trial court that the statements in question were voluntary. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. We grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant the writ, and reverse the judgment below.
Petitioner, who has a ninth-grade education, was arrested on suspicion of burglary shortly before 10:45 on the evening of January 20, 1965. He was taken to a police station. He was suffering from high blood pressure, a condition for which he was taking medication twice a day. Petitioner had last taken food and medication, before his arrest, at 4 p. m. He did not have medication with him at the time of the arrest. At the police station petitioner was interrogated from 10:45 until midnight. He was not advised of his constitutional rights. Petitioner repeatedly denied guilt. No incriminating statements were made at this time.
Petitioner was booked and fingerprinted and, sometime after 2 a. m., he was taken to a cell in the city jail. A plank fastened to the wall served as his bed. Petitioner claims he did not sleep. At 6 a. m., petitioner was led from the cell to a “bullpen.” At 8:30 he was placed in a lineup. At 8:45, his interrogation recommenced. It was conducted by several officers at a time, in a small room. Petitioner testified that in the course of the morning he was not offered food and that he continued to be without medication. For an hour or two he refused to answer any questions. When he did speak, it was to deny, once again, his guilt.
Sometime after 10 a. m., petitioner was asked to write out a confession. He refused, stating that “it was against my constitutional rights” and that he was “entitled to have a lawyer.” These statements were ignored. No further reference was made to an attorney, by petitioner or by the police officers.
At about 11 a. m. petitioner began a series of oral admissions culminating in a full oral confession at about 11:30. At noon he was offered food. The confession was reduced to writing around 1 p. m. Just before the confession was reduced to writing, petitioner was advised of his constitutional rights. According to his testimony, he confessed because “I knew they weren’t going to leave me alone until I did.”
It is our duty, in a case such as this, to make an examination of the record in order to ascertain whether petitioner’s statements were voluntary. See Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737, 741-742 (1966). We believe that, considering the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the statements, see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967), it was error for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to conclude that they were voluntarily made. We reach this decision as in Clewis, without reference to disputed testimony taken at the pretrial hearing.
All of the above recited facts are, under our decisions, relevant to the claim that the statements were involuntary: the lack of counsel, especially in view of the accused’s statement that he desires counsel (see Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730, 735 (1966); cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964)); the lack of food, sleep, and medication (see Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967)); the lack or inadequacy of warnings as to constitutional rights (see Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 630 (1961); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730 (1966)). Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner’s statements were the product of his free and rational choice.
Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.
Petitioner’s trial began before the date of our decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Although petitioner’s trial was after the date of our decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), we need not and do not decide whether that decision would, in itself, require reversal of petitioner’s convictions. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations