When Police May Re-Initiate Questioning

Front 1

When Police May Re-Initiate Questioning:

Back 1

(1) Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
(2) Moran v. Burbine (1986)
(3) Patterson v. Illinois (1988)
(4) Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
(5) Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)
(6) McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991)
(7) Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)

Front 2

(1) Edwards v. Arizona

Back 2

ONCE ACCUSED ASKS FOR COUNSEL: there's NO waiver simply b/c he agrees to respond.
-As always, any waiver must be knowing & intelligent.
-UNLESS the suspect himself initiates communication, the police must NOT question him further until he has counsel
-NOT Offense Specific: Applies to ALL interrogation, includes questioning about crimes OTHER than the 1 for which the suspect is being held

Front 3

(2) Moran v. Burbine

Back 3

Where right to counsel is NOT invoked, the 5th Amendment IS "Offense Specific"
-Police may ask about other unrelated crimes

Front 4

(3) Patterson v. Illinois

Back 4

Edwards did NOT apply b/c D at NO time requested counsel
-AND statement was spontaneous

Front 5

(4) Arizona v. Roberson

Back 5

Edwards is NOT offense-specfic, so when D invokes the right to counsel, ALL questioning MUST CEASE
-Does NOT matter that 2nd officer was unaware D had invoked right to counsel

Front 6

(5) Minnick v. Mississippi

Back 6

Once a custodial suspect invokes his right to counsel, the police may NOT re-initiate interrogation at any time thereafter w/o the ACTUAL PRESENCE of counsel

Front 7

(6) McNeil v. Wisconsin

Back 7

Prior to a formal charge, D may waive rt. to counsel on the strength of Miranda warnings along, even if at that time the D had counsel on a different charge
-Edwards does NOT apply b/c there had been no request for counsel re the PARTICULAR CRIME ABOUT WHICH the Miranda warnings were given.

Front 8

(7) Montejo v. Louisiana

Back 8

Even when the accused has been appointed counsel, the state may attempt to prove a waiver of right counsel justifying post-arraignment interrogation
-A D's valid waiver of his Miranda rights generally amts. to a waiver of his 6th right to counsel

Front 9

Bottom Line

Back 9

1. Pre-Arraignment
2. Post-Indictment/Post-Arraignment

Front 10

1. Pre-Arraigment Interrogation

Back 10

Whether the suspect has invoked the right to counsel under Miranda (5th Amendment)
a. If the Suspect has Requested Counsel
b. Suspect Spontaneously Opens Up
c. If the Suspect has NOT Requested Counsel

Front 11

a. If the Suspect has Requested Counsel:

Back 11

The police MUST STOP questioning altogether:
-Regardless of whether there are different officers involved or
-Whether questioning is about a separate crime from the one for which the suspect was initially arrested

Front 12

b. Suspect Spontaneously Opens Up:

Back 12

The only time police may re-initiate questioning after a request for counsel is when the suspect spontaneously opens up the conversation
(& even then the police must REPEAT the Miranda warnings)

Front 13

c. If the Suspect has NOT Requested Counsel:

Back 13

Then the police may re-initiate questioning after repeating the Miranda warnings
(But not so soon as to constitute badgering the suspect)

Front 14

2. Post-Indictment/Post-Arraignment Interrogation

Back 14

Whether there is a valid waiver of 6th Amendment Right to counsel:
a. 2nd Uncharged Crime
[McNeil at odds w/ Edwards]
b. On Charged Crime
[Specifically Requested]

Front 15

a. 2nd Uncharged Crime Interrogation

Back 15

Even if an accused has been arraigned on a particular crime & had been appointed counsel, police may approach that D w/ separate Miranda warnings to interrogate on a 2nd, uncharged crime.
[McNeil at odds w/ Edwards]

Front 16

McNeil at Odds w/ Edwards:

Back 16

The apparent rationale is that, since the accused has NOT yet been charged w/ the 2nd crime, he may waive his right to counsel re questioning about that crime.

Front 17

b. Interrogation on Charged Crime

Back 17

Even when an accused has been arraigned & appointed counsel on a particular charge, the State may still attempt to prove waiver of one's rt. to counsel so as to justify interrogation ON THAT VERY CHARGE.
(A waiver of Miranda rts. generally amts. to a waiver of 6th rt. to counsel)
[Specifically Requested]

Front 18

Specifically Requested Counsel

Back 18

If an accused has SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED COUNSEL at a post-arraignment proceeding (as opposed to passively accepting the appointment of counsel) then a rule similar to Edwards ought to apply.
-But b/c Michigan v. Jackson was overturned by Montejo, that is NOT the case