No. 2-09- 0194 Fi le d: 4-9-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06-- CF--713 ) GARY W . SCHUNING, ) Ho no r ab le ) John J. K

in sella , Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEBO WMA

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: On Marc h 23 , 2006, d

ef endan t, Gary W. S chuning, was indict ed fo r t he sta bbi ng de ath s of two victim

s on Feb ruary 26, 2006. 720 ILCS 5/9--1(a)(1) (West 2006). On August 14, 2008, def enda nt fi led an am

ended motion to suppress cert ain stat emen ts t hat he made to o ff

icers o n Feb ruary 27, Fe br ua ry 28, an d M arc h 7 , 20 06. On

Ja nu ary 21, 200 9, def

en da nt' s m oti on was deni ed in par t and gr ant ed in pa rt . T he t rial co ur t denied defend ant 's motion to suppress the statemen t t hat he ma de on F eb rua ry 27, 200 6, a

t 2:2 6 p. m . How ever, the trial cou rt gran ted de f en da nt' s m oti on to suppress the statements h e m ade at or after 5:45 p.m. on February 27, 2006 , because the Sta te vi olated Mi randa wit h re spe ct t o d efenda nt 's invoca t ion o f his right to cou ns el . The Sta

te m ove d f or re co nsider at ion, an d t he t r ial court den ie d that motion on Feb ruary 19, 2009. The State fi le d a
certif i ca te of impairment and tim

el y a ppealed the trial

court 's order

pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 60 4( a) ( 1) ( 21 0 I ll. 2 d R
. 60 4( a) ( 1) )
. We affir m.No. 2-- 09--0194

-2- I. BACKG

ROUND On ap pe al, the Stat e argues that the trial cou rt er red i n p arti al l y gra nti ng de f en da nt' s m oti on to suppress , be caus e def

endan t nev er i nv oked h i s ri ght to coun sel
. The statemen ts at i ssue wer

e giv en whi le defen dant was hospi

tali zed at Loyola

Uni versi ty Medi cal Center i n M ay wood, wherehe unde rw ent cr itical su rg er y and t re at ment fo r se rio us s elf-infli ct ed s t ab wo unds t o his c hest , a bdo men, and n eck. D ef

en da n t ar gu es th at, wh en he as ke d if h e c o uld us e a ph o ne an d c all his atto rney at 5:45 p. m. on February

27, 2006, after an i

ni tial in terro gation by

police earlie

r that day, he s

uffic ien t ly in voked his ri ght to coun sel

und er Ed war ds v. Arizo na , 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 386, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 1885 (1981). Therefore, de fen da nt ar gu es , t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly su pp r es se d a ll of the statemen

ts that he made af

ter t hat tim

e. The followi

ng f acts are der i ve d f

rom t he t est imony addu ced at t he hea ring o n defend ant 's
su ppr es si on moti on. Pri

or to wi tne ss tes ti mony , th e Sta te s ti pul ate d to th e f

ac tu al allegat ions
co nt ain ed on page 5, in

paragraphs 14 through 18, of def endan t's am ended m ot ion to supp ress . Those paragraphs provi

ded: "14. In addi ti on, pri or to F eb rua ry 28th, on Feb ruary 27th a t approxi matel y 5:45 p .m ., [d efe nd an t] as ke d O ffice rGie rt z o f t he Ad dis o n P o lice t o us e t he t ele ph o ne t o ca ll his at t o rne y. 15. At the tim

e, [defen dant] was i

n the ICU. 16
. Of fic er Gie rt z t o ld

[ de fe nd an t ] t ha t yes , he co ul d c all h is a t t o rne y. 17. Despi te Off ic er Gie rt z' s a gr ee men t t o allo w [ de fen da nt ] t o ca ll his at t or ney, t he ICU nurse told [def

endan t] t hat phones coul

d not be used i

n the ICU.No. 2-- 09--0194

-3- 18
. Ulti ma t ely, [ de fen da nt ] fell a sle ep in t he I CU an d w as un ab le t o mak e h is reque sted tel

eph one c al l ." The Stat e further sti

pula ted to the factualallegat ions contained on page 7, in paragraphs 4 through 12, of defe

ndan t's am ended m ot ion. Those paragraphs provide d that on February

28, 2006, at 5 p. m., defend ant ask ed O ffi cer s Tier ney and B ru cal o f the Addiso n po lice dep ar t ment if he co uld
ca ll his a t t o rne y t o co nsu lt wit h him about the search warran t t hat the off

ic ers were executi

ng. Defend ant asked that hi s atto rney be pr ese nt dur ing t he exe cut ion o f the search warran t. On March 2, 200 6, at 6: 30 a .m. , O ffi cer Tier ney ret ur ned t o d efenda nt 's hos pi tal room wi th O f f i cer A nd ers on pur sua nt t o t he se ar ch wa rr ant t o o bt ain add itio nal samples fr om d efenda nt 's bo dy. O n th at d ate , defend ant asked Of

fi cer Ti erney to obtai n the teleph

one n um ber of h i s attorne y , John Carb on. Off

ic er Tiern ey co mplied wit h defend ant 's request, and defe ndan t call ed Carbon b

ut was unabl

e to r each him. OnMar ch 3, 20 06 , jus t aft er 3: 34 p. m. , de fen da nt as ke d O ffice rBr an t o f t he Ad dis o n p o lic e dep ar t ment for permi

ssion to call h

is grandm ot her and was told by

Off ic er Bra nt t ha t de fen da nt co uld pla ce ca lls o nly

to hi s atto rney . At 3:35 p. m., at defend ant 's re que st , O ffi cer Bra nt called C ar bon a nd when Car bon's answ er ing ser vice pick ed u p, he hand ed t he pho ne to defen dant. Defen

dant provided Car bon's answ er ingservi cewi th h i s h osp i tal room phone n umb er and hi

s room num

ber and reque sted that Ca rbon gi ve the i nf orma tion to hi s gra ndm other. The Sta te then cal

le d its f irst wi tness, Of fi cer Bria n Goss of the A

ddis on police de

pa rtm en t. On February 26, 2006, O f

f i cer Goss was ca

l l ed to a home

on Ya l e Street wh

eretwo persons we

re dead and one was

in jured i n an apparent double

homi ci de. Defen

dant was t he in

jured party

and was taken to Loyola. Off

ic er Goss did n

ot speak wi

th de f en da n t at th e s cen e. He

f i rs t sp oke wi th defend ant o n Fe br ua ry 27 , 20 06 , at 2: 26 p. m. in de f en da nt' s i nte ns i ve ca re h osp i tal room at Loyola.No. 2-- 09--0194

-4-

Off ic er Sean Gi lh ooley wa s pre se

n t wh en Of f i cer G oss i n ter v i ew ed de f en da n t. Prior to the in

terview, Off ic er Goss spoke to defen

dant's n urse about hi s condi

tion. Off ic er Goss knew that

the day bef ore, defend ant w as ina drug-in duced coma an

d underwen

t o pen-che st surgery. Def endan t also had a nasogastric tube i

nserted i n hi s throat. The nurse a

dvi sed Of fi cer Goss that he wa s be ing t ak en o ff Pr o po fo l, t he co ma- induc ing dr ug , wh ich wo uld t ak e 1 t o 11⁄2 ho ur s t o ex it de fen da nt 's s yst em. The
nurse al so stat ed that the nasogastric tube would be rem oved that day. The t ube w as r emove d ar ou nd 1: 10 p. m. t ha t da y, a ndt he ph ysic ianr emo ving t he t ub e t o ld O ffice rGo ss t o wa it a h alf an h our to one ho ur be fo r e s pe ak ing wit h d efe nd an t . Aft er t he t ub e w as r emo ved , O ff ic er Goss observed defend ant answerin

g questions po sed by

hi s nurse. His voice was ho arse but he responde d appro priately

to basic questions. At 2:26 p.m., Off

ic er Goss began

to in terview de fendant. At t he tim e of the i nterview, defend ant h ad

an i n tra v en ous li n e r un n i n g i n to his arm and his index finger and wa s h ooke d up to a he artmoni

to r. Off ic er Goss had

a mic r o ca ss et t e a ud io recorde r i n the pocke

t of h i s j acke t. The wi re was st ru ng do wn his sleeve "i n attempts to t ry to hide the audio recor der so that t he de fendant didn't
seeit." He adm

itted that he in

tended to r ecord the conversation wi th defen dant regardles s whether defen dant wi shed to have the i

nterview recorded. The entire i nterview was recorded. We br iefly

su mm arize

the audi ot ape of the Fe bruary 27 in terview. Of

fi cer Gil hooley in tro duced himself and Officer G os s as o ffi cer s wit h t he Addiso n po lice dep ar t ment. Defend ant was asked wherehe was a

nd he responded "Loy

ola Hospi tal." Of fi cer Gil hooley to ld de fen

dant that they wanted to ask hi m s ome questions and then read defe

nda nt hi s Mi randa right s individually, and defend ant ack no wle dged that he un derstood each

of these ri ghts as they were read. T he off i cers as ke d h o w d efe nd an t felt , an d d efe nd an t st at ed t ha t his torso hurt. The officer s beg an qu est ioningNo. 2-- 09--0194

-5-

defend ant ab out the eve

nts tha t took pl ac e th e day b ef ore . Th e of f i cersaske d def

en da n t to speak up at t imes so t hat t he r eco rd ing device wo uld r eco rd hi s ans wer s. D efenda nt so unde d co her ent and luc id duri ng the i nterview. Defend ant pr oc eed ed t o t ell the po lice t ha t he ca me h o me after bei ng at a ni ghtclub in Chi cago and cal l ed s ome esc ort servi ces . Defe

ndan t t hen provided detai

ls about t he eve nt s su rr ou nding t he do ub le murd er . As t he o ffi cer s beg an t o c onc lude t he inter view, defend ant sai d "ke ep rec ordi

ng." Defend ant acknowledged thathe kne w t he inte rview was being r ec o r de d, an d h e k ne w t ha t he did not ha ve to talk to the

off i cers . The

off i cers as ke d w he t he rde fen da nt wo uld want to t al k agai n l ater orbe wil li ng to answer more questions later, and defendant said "Iguess." The of fi cers then sa

id that if t he y nee de d t o , t he y wo uld co me t alk t o him agai n. At 3:11 p.m., the Feb

ruary 27, 2006, i

nterview ended. At 3:25 p.m. on Feb ruary 27, 2006, the audiotape re su med wi th of f i cersaski n g def en da n t to authorizet ha t his me dic al rec or ds be re leased t o t he Add ison p olice d epa rt ment. Defend ant questioned

wh at r ec o r ds , an d t he o ffic er s s t at ed his med ica l r ec o r ds fr o m his st ay a t Lo yo la
. De fen da nt t he n a gr ee d a ndsig ne d a n a ut ho r iza t io n fo rm. Off ic e rGos s' s te sti

mony wa s c ons i stent w

i th d ef en da nt' s ta pe -re cord ed sta tem en t f rom Februar y 27. On cross -exam

i na tion, Of f i cer G oss adm

i tted that he an

d Of f i cer Gi l hooley were assi gned to this double -homi

ci de i nve stigati on on February 26 and were re spo nsible for kee ping abreast of al l of the developmen

ts in the case, in

cludi ng the pro gress of ot her offi cers' inter views a nd dis coverie s about the case. Off ic er Goss acknowl edged def endan t's exh ibit No. 1, whic

h was t he reportof Of

fi cer Gi ertz. The report indi

cated that o n Feb

ruary 27, at 5:45 p.m., def endan t asked Off ic er Giertz if he could phone h

i s attorne y . Defe ndan t was denied

per mission t o u se t he pho ne byNo. 2-- 09--0194

-6-

t he nurse. Of

fi cer Goss adm

itted that of

f i cerstook n

o acti on to en ab l e def en da n t' s wi sh to sp ea k to his at t or ney. O ffi

cer Go ss ad mitt ed t hat he did no t spe ak w ith O ffi cer Gier t z r ega rd inghis rep ort or re gar ding d efenda nt 's request. In fact, Off ic er Goss admi

tt ed that he had n

ot read Off

ic er Gier t z's
repor t, an d w asnot awa re of d efenda nt 's re que st , u nt il severa l days lat er , so metime aft er t he March 7 in terview. Off ic er Goss testifi

ed that on February

28, 2006, at 8:26 a. m., he and Of fi cer Gil hooley returnedto Loyola Hospital to in terview defendan t. Defendan

t was admin

istered his Mi

randa rights, and defen dant acknowledged each ri ght and that he un

derstoo d each

right . D efenda nt proce eded to an swe r m ore ques tions rel ated to the d

oubl e m urder. We nex t summ ar iz e the audiotap e re cord

i ng of the execution of

the se arc h warran t on Febru ary 28, 2006. During the ex ecution of the s earch warrant, by Off ic er Tiern ey and Of fice r Bru cal , de f en da nt s tate d that he w an

ted a l aw yer pres en

t f ort he se ar ch. An

officer t old defend ant it wa s his right t o ha ve an at t or ney pr ese nt but t hat t he pr ese nce o f an at t or ney wo uld no t affect t he
exec ut ion o f the search warran t. Defendan

t inf ormed the off

ic erthat he had n

ot been abl e to make
a pho ne call s in

ce he arri ved at Loyola Hospital . He ask ed ho w he c ou ld o bt ain a lawyer when he had not be en ab l e to cal

l a lawy er. Defe ndan t reiterated t hat he wan

ted a l aw yer pr es en t b ut s ai d th at, if they were not going to sto p coll ectin g sam ple s, the off

ic ers could conti

nue. Off ic er Go ss ad mitt ed t hat he did no t beco me awa re of d efenda nt 's Feb ruary 28 th sta tem en ts to Off ic er T ier ne y un t il aft er Ma r ch 7, 20 06
. Offic er Go ss t he n a ck no wle dg ed de fen se ex hibit No. 2, whi ch was a police report by

Off ic er Ande rson datedMarc h 2, 2006. In the report, Off ic er An derson i ndicated that at 6:35 a.m. on March 2, defen dant calle d Carbon. Of

fi cer Goss adm

itted that he was not aware of def endan t's phone cal

l un til after March

7.No. 2-- 09--0194

-7-

Off ic er Go ss t hen ac kno wledg ed d efense exhibit No . 3 , a po lice rep or t by Offi cer Bra nt , whi ch in dic ated that o n March

3, 2006, at 3:34 p. m., def endan t asked to call

hi s gran dm other. Off ic er Br an t info rmed de fe nd an t t ha t he co ul d c all o nly h is atto rney . Off ic er Brant then dial ed Car bon's pho ne number and ha nded t he phon e to def endan t. Off ic er Goss agai

n adm itted that he was not aware of this

exch ange un til after March

7. Defens e exhi

bi t No . 4 was a police report by Off ic er Sin kule , wh ich no t ed t ha t at 9: 33 a. m. onMa rch 6, 2006, defen dant pla ced a phone ca

ll to a form

er girl fri end. Of fi cer Sin kul e hear d defend ant tel

l he r that he n

ee de d a l aw yer b ut c oul d n ot af f ord on e. Agai n, Of f i cer Gos s w asnot aware of thi s report until

someti me after March

7. The S t at e t he n r es t ed , an d t he de fe ns e c alle d O ffic er Gil ho o ley a s its f irst wi tness. Of fi cer Gil hooley admit t ed t hat when he and O ffi cer Go ss r et ur ned t o d efenda nt 's hos pi tal room on Feb ruary 28, 200 6, h

e w asunaw are

tha t i n th e a f tern oon of February 27, de f en da nt asked Of f i cer Gi ertz f or perm i ss i on t o ca ll his l aw

yer . H e a l so was n ot aware of

de f en da n t' s s ub se qu en t re qu ests to Off

ic er Tiern ey on F eb rua ry 28, Of f i cer A nd ers on on March 2, an

d Off ic er Brant on March 3, an

d Off ic er Sinku le's repor

t of de f en da n t' s ph on e c on

v er sa ti on wi th an ex-gi rlf rien d, until after the f in al in terview with de fen

dant on March 7. Off ic er Douglas Gi

ertz t estif ie d t hat he wa s ass igned t o w at ch de fendant while he wa s in the ho sp it al. At a ppr oximat ely 5:45 p. m. o n Febr uar y 27, 200 6, defend ant ask ed O ffi cer Gier t z if he
co uld use a t elepho ne an d c all his at t o rne y. O ffice rGie rt z s aid t ha t he co uld us e a ph o ne bu t did not han d hi m a phone an d did n ot know whether there was a ph one i n the room. A n

urse then en

tered t he roo m, an

d defen dant asked the nurs e i f h

e could use a

phone. The n

urse advised def

endan t t hat phoneswere

not al l owed i n i ntensi ve care uni t ro oms. Accordin

g to Off ic er Giertz, def

endan t t henNo. 2-- 09--0194

-8-

fell as lee p. Offic er Gie rt z d id n o t ad vise an yo ne t ha t de fen da nt ha d r eq ue st ed t o ca ll hi s a t t o rne y. He did inc lud e it in his po lice r ep o rt . Offic er Gie rt z c o uld no t r ec allwhether he had a ce l l ph on e wi th him bu t wa s a wa r e t ha t t he r e w as a p ho ne av aila ble at t he nu r se 's s t at io n. He ad mit t ed t ha t he did not ask defend ant any clarifying que st ions a bou t t he r equ est , be cau se he did no t believe defend ant wa s s ee kin g t o invo ke his r igh t t o co un se l. Off ic er Steve An derson testif

ie d that on March 2, 200 6, he wa s gu ar ding defen dant's h ospital
r o o m. At 5:45 a.m., Of

fi cer Mi ke Tier n ey ar ri v ed to ex ec ut e a se ar ch wa rr an t t o co llec t ce rt ainit ems f rom de f en da nt' s b ody . A

t approx i mate l y 6:3 0 a .m ., O f

f i cer A nd ers on hear d de fendant ask for t he t ele ph o ne nu mbe ro f his at t o rne y. Officer T ierney o bt ained C ar bon's pho ne n um b er an d g av e i t to de f en da n t. Defe ndan t t hen calle dCarbon. Of

fi cer An derson i ncl uded this in form ation i n hi s poli ce reportbu t he di d n ot ve rb al l y i nf orm an y one . The c onv

ers ati on w assh ort an d O f f i cer A nd ers on he ard them

di scu ss m

oney and he ard de f

endan t state tha t he woul d be

rece i vi ng a tax re f und
. O n cr os s-e xaminatio n, O ffi

cer Ander so n denied t hat defend ant was being qu es t io ne d a t t he t ime o f his request for Car bon's pho ne number and de nie d t ha t de fen da nt st at ed an yt hing t o t he effe ct t ha t he did
n ot wa n t to an swer an y qu esti on s wi

th out a n attor n ey pr es en t. Off ic er E r ic B r an t t es t ified t ha t o n Ma r ch 3, 20 06 , he wa s g ua r din g d efe nd an t 's h o sp it al r o o m. At 3:34 p.m. thatday , defen dant asked to call

hi s grandm

ot her. Of fi cer Bra nt informed defend ant t hat h e co uld ca ll only hi s at t or ney. D efenda nt t hen r equ est ed t o c all his att or ney. O ffi cer Bra nt dia le d Carb on' s ph

one n um ber and h anded de f

en da nt th e re ce i ve r. D ef en da nt l ef t a m es sa gef or Ca rb on ind ica t ing t ha t he wa nt ed Ca r bo n t o t ell his grandm

ot her hi s room num

ber and ph one n um ber. Off ic er Bra nt v erb al l y tol d the of

f i cer wh o too k ove r g uar ding d efenda nt what had ha ppe ned a nd i n cl uded th e i n f orm ati on i n h i s rep ort.No. 2-- 09--0194

-9-

Off ic er Oma r Brucal testi fi

ed that on February

28, 2006, he and O ffi cer Tiern ey arriv ed at defend ant 's hos pit al ro om t o e xecu t e a s ear ch wa rr ant . D ur ing t he exe cut ion of the wa rra n t, defend ant in

dic atedthat he wan

ted an atto rney

present. The off

ic ers responded on two o ccasi ons that defend ant co uld have an atto rney present but that they would not st op co ll ecting sam

ples, because they had a warran

t. Offi cer Brucal

did n ot in form any one that defend ant ha d a sk ed fo ran at t o rne y. Off ic er Michael Ti erney testi f i ed that on F ebruary

28, 2006, he and Of

fi cer Br uc al wen t to defend ant 's hospi

tal room to execute a search wa rr ant . At one po int, defend ant expr esse d t hat he wanted an attor ney

present. Off

ic er Tiern ey responded that defen

dant was f ree to co ntact an atto rney butt ha t it wo uld not prohi bi t the of f i cers f rom executi ng the se arc h warran t. Of f i cer Ti ern ey di d n ot i nf orm any one el se about defen

dant's request. He adm

itted that defen

dant had stated that he

ha d n ot been allowed to contact his a t t o rne y and did no t be lieve t ha t his atto rney knew wh ere he was. On March 2, 2006, Off

ic er Tiern ey returned to defen

dant's h ospital roo m to collect more sam ple s pur sua nt t o t he se ar ch wa rr ant . O ffi cer Ander so n was in the r oo m at t he t ime, gu ar ding de f en da n t. Aro und 6:30 p.m., def

en dant asked Of

fi cer Tiern ey to get him

Carbon' s phone n

umb er. Off

ic er Tiern ey obtaine d the phone n

umb er by dia li ng 411 an d provided the ph

one num ber to defendan

t. He did not obs er ve de fendant do anything wit h t he ph o ne nu mbe r . Offic er T ier ne y als o did no t ve r ba lly report this

in form ation to any

one el se, becaus e the audiot ape was recordin g. Off ic er Jo hn Sinkule test if

ie d that he was guardi

ng def endan t o n March

6, 2006, when defend ant rec ei

ve d a phone cal l f rom An na Colonero. Offi

cer Sin kule heard def endan t stat e that he needed an atto rney and that he could not aff

ord o ne. Of

fi cer Sin kule in cl uded t his in fo rmat io n in h is
re po rt but did no t ver bally i nfor m anyone o f this infor matio n.No. 2-- 09--0194

-10-

S er gea nt Ma

rk Va n Ste du m of th e A ddi son pol i ce de pa rtm en t testi f i ed th at a l l th e report s fi le d by the guardin

g off ic ers i n def endan t's case would have or should h ave go ne to Off

ic er Gil hooley . Serg ea

n t Va n Ste du m di d n ot re ca l l re v i ewi n g th e rep ortsby t he gu ar din g o ffice r s u nt il sometim e in April 2006, when he signed the repo rts. Ser gea nt J os eph Lu

l l o of th e A ddi son pol i ce de pa rtm en t testi f i ed th at h e rev i ew ed repor ts subm itted by so me o f de fen da nt 's g ua r din g o ffice r s, sig ne d o ff o n t he m, and then f orw arde d th

em to t he in vestigations un

it, whi ch wa s s up er vise d b y Se r ge an t Va n S t ed um. Se r ge an t Lu llo supervised pa trol off i cers , som e of whom were pl

ace d on gu

ard duty over def endan t. He di d not verb al

l y report anything that wa s c o nt ain ed in any report s he rev

ie wed to anyone i

n the i nve stigati ons uni

t, which in cluded Off

icers Gi lh oo ley and Goss. The par t ies t hen st ipulat ed t o t he pho ne r eco rd s o f Anna Co loner o, which su ppo rt ed t hat she had call ed defendant's h

ospital roo m on several

occasions. On January 21, 2009, the tri

al courtis sued i

ts ruli ng. The trial

court found that def

endan t was un do ub t ed ly

i n cu sto dy at th e s cen e of th e cri me a n d ev er y m om en t af ter th at p oi n t. He was treated at Lo yola Ho spit al for his inj ur ies, u nder go ing invasive su r ge ry. W he n d efe nd an t wa s a ble to speak, he wa s int er vie we d. T he firs t int er vie w t o o k p lac e o n Fe br ua ry 27 , 20 06 , at 2: 26 p. m. The court fou nd t hat t his first inter view wa s ad missibl e bec au se de fen da nt wa s p r o pe r ly ad minist er ed his Mi randa war nings, he kno wingly and vo lunt ar ily waiv ed hi s rights, and he answered the offi cers' questions. The cou

rt di d n ot f i nd tha t the i nte rvi ew wa s th e p roduct of

coerci on or t hat defend ant wa s u nd er t he influ en ce o f any me di ca t io n s uc h t ha t his st at eme nt wa s in vo lunt ar y. The trial court nex

t considered the ex

chan ge between

defen dant and Of

fi cer Gie rtz at 5:45 p. m. on F ebr uar y 27, 200 6. The t rial co ur t co nclude d t hat defend ant had i nvoked h is righ t t o counselNo. 2-- 09--0194

1 The partiesdo n

ot dispute th at th e i n v oca ti on of th e f i f th am endm ent righ t t o counsel appl

ie s t o l ater i nterroga tions ev en i f the i nterroga tin g of f i cers are un awar e of the i nv ocati on. Ari

zo na v . Rob ers on , 486 U.S. 675, 687, 100 L. Ed. 2d 704, 717, 108 S . Ct. 2093, 2101 (1988). Thus, we
ev al ua te t he sta tem en ts m ade to O f f i cer Gi ertz kn owi ng tha t aw are ne ss of such statements i s i

mputed to Off icers Gi lh oo ley and Goss. -11- dur ing t his e xc ha ng e. De fen da nt ind ica t ed t ha t he wa nt ed t o us e t he t ele ph o ne t o ca ll an at t or ney and that Off ic er Giertz i

nf ormed def

endan t t hat he could do so. Ho wev er, no p hone was avai lab le so defen dant was una

bl e to contact hi s attorne

y . Bec aus e de fendant invok ed his r ight t o c ou nsel, t he trial court ruled, cas e l aw provided tha t he was not to be su

b j ec te d t o fur t he rint er r o ga t io n u nt il
cou nsel had been mad e ava ilable to him unless he validly waived his e ar lier re que st by ini t iating
con tact. Here, the trial

court determi

ned that defe

ndan t's statemen

t t o Off ic er Gie rtz was unequi

vocal and wa s no t a me r e r efe r en ce t o a la wye r . T he t r ial c o ur t no t ed t ha t , wh ile it did not believe t hat t he off i cers acted in bad f ai th in thin kin g defen dant had n

ot in voked hi s righ

t t o co un se l, an d w hile Off icers Goss an

d G i l hool ey i n good f ai th d i d n ot know of def

endan t's i nvocati on, that knowledge
was i m puted to them . Theref

ore, because there was n

o evi dence that def

endan t had i ni ti ate d a ny of t he conversations that foll owedthe F ebruary

27, 2006, exchan

ge wi th Off ic er Giertz, the i

nterviews of February

28 and March

7 were in

adm is si ble. On Feb

ruary 19, 2009, the trial

court deni

ed t h e St at e's mo t io n fo rr ec o nsid er at io n. T he St at e t imely appealed and argues that the trial court erred because defen dant never in

voked his righ

t t o counsel i

n hi s conversa

tion wi th Off ic er Giertz. 1 II. AN AL YSIS Wh en re viewing a t rial co ur t 's ru ling on a m ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce, weappl

y a two-part stan dard of rev iew. We revi ew the t rial

cour t's fi ndi ngs of histo rical

fact and wil

l reverse thoseNo. 2-- 09--0194

-12-

fi ndi ngso nly if they are agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev ide nce. Pe opl

e v . C rotty

, 394 Ill . App. 3d 651, 655 (2009). We review de no vo t he t r ial c o ur t 's u lt imat e le ga l ru ling as to whether
su ppr es si on i s wa rran ted. Crotty, 394 Ill . App. 3d at 655. Here, t he parties do not dis

pute what words defen

dant stated b ut on

l y wh eth er h i s word s c on sti

tute d a n i n v oca ti on of h i s r i gh t to co un se l. Thus, we review onl

y the trial court 's ul tim ate legal concl usion that suppressi on was warranted, whi ch we review de no vo . See Crotty, 394 Ill . App. 3d at 655. A crim in al defen dant has a c onstitutional

righ t t o counsel at al

l c ustodial in terro gations, as provided by both the Uni

ted St ates and Illi

nois Constitutions. U. S. Co nst . , ame nd s. V, XI V; I ll. Con st. 197 0, a rt . I , §1 0; People v . Flores , 315 Il l . Ap p. 3d 38 7, 392 (2000)
. In order to in voke t he Mi randa right t o c ou nsel, a defend ant must be in cus t od y and su bj ec t to in terro gation or under imm inent threa

t of i nterroga tion
. Peop l e v . Vi

l l al obos , 193 Ill . 2d 22 9, 241-42 (2000). Once a de fe ndant invo ke s t ha t r igh t , t he po lice ca nno t int er r o ga t e h im fur t he run les s t he ac cu se d in i ti ate s further com m un i ca ti on , e x ch an ge s, or c on

v er sa ti on s wi th the p oli ce. Ed war ds v. Arizo na , 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 386, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 1885 (1981). The Edwards rule is desi gned to prevent the poli

ce from badgeri ng a def endan t into waiv

in g hi s previ

ous as sertion of

h i s r i gh t to co un se l. People v . Woolley , 178 Ill . 2d 175, 198 (1975). Thus, i f the pol ic e subs equentl

y i ni tiate a
con ve rs ati on with the a

ccused i n the ab sence of coun sel , the accused's statements are presum

ed i nv olu ntary and are i nadm i ssi bl e as sub stan tiv e ev i den ce a t trial
. Wooll

ey , 178 Ill . 2d at 198. Any wai ver of th e righ t t o counsel gi

ven in a di scussi

on in itiated by the police i s presum

ed i nva li d. Wooll ey , 178 Ill . 2d at 198. In appl yi ng the rigid, prophy

la ctic Edwards rule, the cou rt must first det er mine whet her t he defend ant in

voked his ri ght to coun sel
. Smit h v. I llino is , 469 U.S. 91, 95, 83 L. Ed. 2d 488, 493, 105No. 2-- 09--0194

-13-

S. Ct . 4 90, 493 (1 984 ). Whet her a de fendant ha s inv o ke d h is r ig ht t o co un se l is a n o bje ct ive inq ui ry. Da vis v. Uni

ted Stat es , 512 U.S. 452, 459, 129L. Ed. 2d 362, 371 , 114 S. Ct. 2350 , 2355 ( 1994)
. In voc ati on of th e r i gh t to counsel

mi ni ma ll y requi res a statement that can reasonably be construed to be an ex pres sion of

a des i re f or the as si stan

ce of coun sel
. Da vis , 512 U.S. at 459, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 371, 114

S. Ct. at 2 355 . If

a def en da nt m akesa re f ere nc e to a n a ttorn ey tha t i s a m bi guous or eq uiv o ca l su ch t ha t a r ea so nable o ffice rin ligh t o f t he cir cu mst an ce s " wo uld ha ve un ders tood o nly that th e s us pe ct mightbe invok ingth e ri gh t to co unse l , ou

r p re ce den

ts do n ot req ui re th e c es sa ti on of q ues tion i ng." (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Da vis , 512 U.S. at 459, 12 9 L . Ed . 2d at 3 71 , 11 4 S . C t. at 2355. The def

endan t need not art ic ula te his desi re in the ma nne rof a Harvard li

nguis t, but he must
ar ti cul ate his de si re i n a clear e nough man ner that a re ason

ab l e of f i cer i n t he cir cu mst an ce s w o uld und erstan d the statem en t to be a req

uest for an

attorney. Da vis , 512 U.S. at 459, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 37 1, 11 4 S
. Ct
. at 23 55 . T he I llino is S up r eme Court hasaff irm ative ly adopted t he Da vis objec t ive i nqu i ry as the threshol

d anal ys is in determi ni ng whether a defe

ndan t has in voked his r igh t t o co un se l. In r e Chr isto pher K. , 217 Il l . 2d 348 , 380 (2 005). We first re

ject t he St at e's a rg ument t hat defend ant 's request to call h is atto rney was not made dur ing i nte rrog ati on or when i nterrogat ion was i

mm in ent. Defen

dant at all tim es duri ng hi s hospi tal stay was guarded by

an A ddis on police off

ic er and was

una bl e to le av e. Altho ugh he was not being in terro gated at t he tim

e of hi s request, it is

cl ear on the audi o recor din g of the i ni tial in terview that t he officer s we re go ingto speak wi th defen dant agai n, as they ask ed f or hi s coopera

tion wi th f uture questioni ng. De f en da n t h ad n o i n di ca ti on as to when the of f i cers would return
. Hecoul d n ot con trol when t he o ffice r s w o uld wa lk in t o his h o sp it al r oom ag ai n. Furtherm

ore, t he off

ic ers di d in

fact return l ess than 24 hours l

ater.No. 2-- 09--0194

-14-

The partiesdo no t cit e a ndwe do no t findan y Illin o is ca se wi th f acts th at a recom pa ra b l e to t he fact s o f the case at bar; s o, we consider variousforeign cases . We f in d dis tingui shable the cases ci ted by the S t at e in sup po rt of it s po sitio n t hat de fen dant could n

ot in voke his righ

t t o counsel between the fi rst and second i

nterviews. Fi

rst, t he State discus ses Mc Ne il v. Wisc o nsin , 501 U.S. 171, 115 L. Ed. 2d

158, 111 S. Ct. 2204 (1991). We do not fi nd Mc Ne il

particul arl y relevan t. In Mc Ne il , t he de f

en da n t i n v oke d h i s s i xth am endm ent righ t t o counsel at hi

s bai l h earin g for an arm

ed robb ery off en se. Mc Ne il , 501 U.S. at 173-74, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 165, 111 S . Ct. at 2206
. Later, i nv esti gators qu esti on ed

th e def en da n t ab out a n un re l ate d m urder a f ter prov i di n g th e def en da n t wi th hi s Mi randa warn i ngs . Mc Ne il , 5 01 U .S . a t 173 -7 4, 115 L. E d. 2d a t 165 , 1 11 S . C t . a t 220 6. The Su pr eme Court dis cussed

t hat t he sixt h amendment right t o c ou nsel is o ffense sp ecific and canno t be in voked for all f uture pro secutions ; the f if th ame ndm ent righ t t o coun se l pe

rtains to custodial inter ro gat ions about an

y matter. Mc Ne il , 501 U.S. at 175-77, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1 66 -6 8, 1 11 S. Ct. at 2207 -08. "The purpose of the Six th Am endm ent counsel

guarantee--and hen

ce the purpo se o f invok ingit--is

to 'protec[t ] the unaided l ay ma n at cri ti ca l con f ron tati on s' wi th his ' ex pert adv ersa ry ,' t he gove rnm en t, after 't he ad ver se p os itio ns o f go ver nment and def endan t have sol idi fi ed' with res

pect to a particul

ar all eged cri me." (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Mc Ne il , 501 U.S. at 177-78, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 168, 111 S. Ct. at 2209, quot in g Unit ed S t at es v. Go uv eia , 467 U.S. 180, 189, 81 L. Ed. 2d 146, 155, 104 S. Ct. 2292, 2298 (1984). The purpose o f the Mi randa
- Edwa rds guara

ntee , the C ourt expl ai ned, is t o pr o t ec t t he de fen da nt 's in t er es t in d ea ling wit h t he po lic e o nly t hr o ug h c o un se l. Mc Ne il , 501 U .S. at 177-7 8, 115 L . Ed. 2d a t 168, 111 S. C t. at 2209. Thus, the Court held that invok ingone 's sixt h amendment righ t to coun se l f orassi stance duri

ng prosecutorial proceedi

ngs doesNo. 2-- 09--0194

-15-

not impli edly invoke one 's fifth amend ment r ight to counsel duri ng i nterroga tions ab out any

matter. Mc Ne il , 501 U.S. at 179-80, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 169-70, 111 S. Ct . at 2209-10. The ca se at b ar i s n ot f ac tual l y si m i l ar to Mc Ne il , a s de fendant in no way i m pl i ca ted h i s s i xth amendment righ

t t o counsel b efore he was charged by compl ai nt on March 7, 2006. The fa ct that defend ant di d n o t sp ec ific ally s t at e w hy he wa nt ed t o co nt ac t his at t o rne y doe s not som eh ow i m pl i ca te defen dant's si xth am endm ent righ t t o counsel f

or pro secutorial

proceedin

gs that had

not yet begu n. Under the ci

rcumstances i

n thi s case, defen

dant 's de sire t o s pea k wit h co unse l cou ld have related onl

y to the im

mi nen t interrogations that he was f aci ng. The Sta te n ex t j um psf rom Mc Ne il

to several

ot her cases

that it argues im

ply that, because there was a break in direct i nterrogat ion, def

endan t's i nvocati on of his righ

t t o counsel was

in eff ective. The b rea k i n i nte rrog ati on do es no t invalidate t he effect of t he Edwards rule, b ecause i t is obv ious to thisco ur

t (a n d th e tr i al cou rt) t h at def en da n t wa s sti l l i n cu sto dy an d u n der i m m i n en t th re at o f further i nterroga tion . The addi tion al cas es that the Sta

te ci tes to supp ort t his a r gu men t ar e fa ct ua lly dis t ing uis hable and are n onbi ndi ng on thi s court. See Uni ted St ates v. Grim

es , 142 F.3d 1342, 1348-50 (1 1t h Cir
. 19 98 ) ( t he de fen da nt 's " cla im o f r igh t s" fo rm o n o ne ch ar ge did no t invo ke his ri gh t to co unse l for p ur po ses o f an inte rview a mont h late r r elat ing t o d iff er ent char ges ; furt her , t he in terviews wer e not cust od ial i

nte rr og at ions); Uni

ted St ates v. La gr one , 43 F. 3d 33 2, 3 36 -3 7 ( 7th Ci r. 1994) (the defen

dant did n ot request an atto rney

durin g custodial

in terro gation but rather when asked t o s ign a co nsent -t o- sea rc h for m; the co nsent for m was no t an inte rr og at ion and t he defend ant 's request to consul

t his atto rney befo re signing wa s a r ight prov i de d by Indian a l aw ; th us , hi s i nv oca ti on of that stat uto ry right was not an i nvocation of hi s Mi

randa ri gh t to co unsel); Alston v. Redm an , 34 F. 3d 1237, 1245 (3d Cir. 1994) (the defen dant was not bei

ng i nterrogat ed or fac in

g im mi nen tNo. 2-- 09--0194

-16-

i nte rrog ati on wher e t he de fendant invok ed his r ight t o co un se l wh ile spe aking w ith a r epr ese nt at ive f rom t he pu blic defende r's off

ic e and wa s not reint err og at ed unt il thr ee da ys lat er) ; People v . Nguyen, 132 Cal. Ap p. 4t h 350 , 3 57- 58, 33 C al. Rp t r. 3d 3 90, 394 -9 5 ( 200 5) (t he defend ant was not being in terro gatedor facing i

m m i ne nt q ue sti oni ng dur i ng arrest f or pos se ss i on of

dr ugs when t he de fendant tried t o c all her lawyer befo re being hand cuffed and w hen it w as r eas ona ble to co nclude t hat t he defend ant may

ha ve wan ted to cal l to arrange b ail); Co st ley v. Sta te , 175 Md. App. 90, 110-11, 926 A.2d 769, 780-81 (2007) (que stiona ble analysis wher e Ma ryland co ur t det er mined only t hat t he defend ant did no t invok e t he ri gh t to counsel

durin g in terro gation; the c ourt fai

le d to dis cuss wh

ether t he de fendant wasf

aci ng i m m i nent i nterroga tion ); State v. R

elf ord , 9 Neb. App. 985, 992-93, 623 N.W.2d 343, 348-49 (2 001 ) ( co ur t did no t believe t he de fendant wa s f ac i ng i m m i ne nt i nte rrog ati on wheret he de fendant gave a state men t to police on August 15, was pl aced i n j ail, stated he n

eeded a pu blic de f en der on Augu st 16 bu t dec lined t o c all one when of f ere d, a nd wa s i nte rrog ate d agai

n on August 17) ; Russel

l v . Texas , 215 S.W.3d 531, 534-36 (Tex. App. 2007) (the defen dant's ref erence to ca l li n g h i s a ttorn ey wa s i n re sp on se to th e p oli ce

of f i cer' s req ue st f or co nsen

t to se arc h, not i nterroga tion ). Morepersuasi

ve are def endan t's cases that

support his argum

ent that the in

terrupt ion b etween t he f i rs t an d s ec ond i nte rvi ew s d i d n ot af f ec t the prote cti on s a f f orde d to hi

m und er Edwards . In Uni ted Stat es v. K

el sey, 95 1 F
. 2d 11 96 , 11 98
- 99 ( 10 t h C ir. 19 91 ) , t he de fen da nt as ke d t o se e h is la wyer aft er he wa s ar re st ed a nd po lice wer e se ar ching his ho me. T he po lice t o ld the defe ndan t t hat if he wa nt ed his la wye rno w, t he y co uld no t as k h im que st ions an d w o uld ha ve t o t ak e h im t o jail. The po lice did no t as k t he de fen da nt qu es t io ns a nd did no t r ea d h im hi s Mi randa wa rning s u nt il

muc h l ater, and the def

endan t answered ques tion s. K el sey, 9 51 F .2 d at 119 8. Altho ugh t he de fendantNo. 2-- 09--0194

-17-

i nv oked h i s ri ght to coun sel

be f ore he was questioned or g iv en his Mi randa wa rn i n gs , the a pp el l ate co ur t det er mined t hat t he Edwards rule was triggered because it was cl ear that the polic e i

ntended to que sti on the defe ndan t at so me point and tha

t t he po lice unde rst oo d t he de fendant was invok ing his ri ght to ha

ve coun sel pres en t duri ng q uestion i ng. Kelsey, 95 1 F. 2d at 11 99;se e al so St at e v. Torr es , 330 N.C. 517, 527, 41 2 S
. E . 2d 20 , 26 ( 19 92 ) ( wh er e t he de fen da nt wa s p lac ed in custody f orse ve r al h o ur s be fo r e q ue st io ning , su pr eme co ur t he ld t ha t t he de fen da nt co uld invok e her right to counsel

for i mpe ndi ng i nterrogat ion though

she wasnot acti

ve l y be i ng q uestion ed at the ti

me); Sta te v. Ha mbly , 2008 WI 10, ¶42, 307 Wis. 2d 98, ¶42, 745 N.W.2d 48, ¶42 (finding t hat t he defend ant effe ct ive ly

i nv oked h i s ri ght to coun sel

wherehe asked for an att orney at t im e of hi s arrest bu t be fo r e in t er r o ga t io n be ga n)
. Lik ew ise , de fen da nt in t his case was unde r c ons t ant police guard,
un ab le t o lea ve, and fac ingimminen t po lice int er r o ga t io ns. T he fac t t ha t de fen da nt r eq ue st ed t o ca ll counsel aft er t he firs t int er vie w b ut be fo r e t he se co nd int er vie w d o es no t inva lida t e h is i nv oca ti on of his right to counsel . Defen dant was not required to wait for i nterrogat in

g off ic ers to r eadm

in is ter his Mi randa warnin gs before he could i

nvoke hi s rights. Moreover, the Uni

ted St ates Supr em

e Court r ecentl

y a ddressed breaks

in custodial i nte rrog ati on in Mary la nd v. Sh atzer , No. 08- -680 (U.S. February 24, 2010 ). In Sh atz er , t he de f en da nt wasi nc arc era ted when pol i cei nte rrog ate d h

i m f oran unrelated sexual abuseclaim. The de fe ndan t in voked his righ

t t o counsel, polic e stopped t he questionin g, and the def

endan t was releas ed back into t he ge ner al jail popu latio n. T wo years late r, po lice ret ur ned t o q ues t ion t he defend ant based on n

ew i nf orma tion, and the

def endan t conf ess ed. Shatzer , slip o p. at 2. The Su pr eme Cou

rt e x pl ai n ed th at on ce a

def endan t in voke s h i s ri ght to coun sel

und er Mi randa , subs equ ent req

ue sts f or i nte rrog ati on p ose a s i gn i f i ca ntl y gre ater risk

of co er cion. Shatzer , sli

p op.No. 2-- 09--0194

-18-

at 7. I t ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t t his risk o fte n ar ises whe n a defen dant is arrested for a particular crim e, is init ially int er r o ga t ed , an d u p t o an d in clu din g t he se co nd int er r o ga t io n is he ld in cu st o dy, "c ut o ff fro m his no rma l life

and com pan i ons * ** wh

ere h i s ca ptors" s eem

to control h

i s f ate. Shatzer , slip op. at 7. The Supreme C ourt then an nounced that

po lice mu st o bse rv e t he c o nse qu enc es o f Edwards unti l there ha s b een a break i n custody of 1 4 day

s. Shatzer , sli

p op. at 11. W i th t he Su pr eme Co ur t ack now ledging that t he potential for coercion ex

is ts during c

ustody and li n gersf or 1 4 day s b ey ond th e actual cu sto di al period, we

ca n n ot ag re e wi th th e S tate th at, mer ely because defen dant was not bei

ng di rectly questioned at the t ime of hi s req ue st, h e di d n ot in voke his righ

t t o counsel

under the circumstances. Unde r t he uniqu e fact s o f this ca se, defend ant was at all

tim es i n custody an

d was speci

fi cally asked to be ques ti o ned again by the officers. Defend ant was no t giv en a t ime or dat e of the ne xt in terview, was

not released f

rom custody, was immo bile d ue t o his in

jur ies , an d w as un de rco nst an t gu ar d b y po lice
. De fen da nt ha d a sk ed fo rhis atto rney whi le in custody and f

aci ng f urther poli ce questioni

ng an d was deni

ed the abi li ty to cont act him. Under these f

acts, we ca

nn ot agree that the pot entia

l f or co ercion di

d not continue throughout the fi rst intervi ew, throughout the break i n questionin

g, and t hro ugho ut t he subsequent in terviews. Theref ore, co nsider ing t he ca ses c ited by defen dant and Shatzer 's instr uct ion r ega rd ing t he linger ing eff ect o f coercive en

vi ronments, we ag r ee wit h d efe nd an t t ha t his r eq ue st fo ran at t o rne y, w hile in custody and f

aci ng i mpe ndi ng i nterrogat ion, suf

fi ci ently triggered Edwards ' pr ot ect ion. We nex t reject the Stat e's argum ent that defen

dant's request to call

hi s atto rney

was am bi guous because

it wasun kn o wn wh y de fen da nt wis he d t o ca ll hi s atto rney . The State argues t hat in the ab senc e of

a m ore specif ic request that an att orney

be pr ese nt dur ing qu est ioning, defend ant 's request ca n n ot co n sti tute in vocation of h

is righ t t o counsel

und er Mi randa . We agr ee w ith d efenda ntNo. 2-- 09--0194

-19-

and th e tr i al cou rt th at def en da n t' s req ue st to ca ll

his a t t o rne y wa s a n u na mbig uo us invo ca t io n o f his right to counsel . Defen

dant was i n custody, ha

d jus t been in terr ogat ed by

police l ess than three hours earl i er, and h ad been to ld that they

would wan

t t o further

qu es t io n him l ater. D ef en da nt d i d n ot in qui re whet her he s

hould c all h

is la wyer or po nder whe

ther he ne eded counsel ; he asked unequi vocally to call h is la wyer--a request t hat was unequi vocally ign ored. We fi nd People v . Eich

wedel , 2 47 I ll. App. 3d 3 93 ( 199 3) , p er sua sive. I n Eich wedel , t he defend ant ask

ed if he could cal l Jef f Wi l li ams, h i s n oncri m i na l attorney. Eich

wedel , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 396 . Inste ad

of ce as i ng the que sti oni ng , th e of f ic er asked the def

endan t if he kn ew a cri mi nal attor n ey , to whi ch the defe ndan t stat ed that he did not and asked wha t would happen

if he cal le d a crim in al attorney. Eich

wedel , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 395-96. T he off ic er expl ai ned t hat t he de fendant
wo uld be proc es se d a

nd taken to t he Cook Co unty j ail a nd that, if he ch ose not t o call

a crim in al at t o rne y, he would sign

a Mi randa wai ver f orm a nd th e i nterv i ew woul d con tin ue. Eich wedel , 247 I ll. App. 3d at396. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t de t er mine d t ha t o nc e t he de fe nd an t as ke d t o ca ll his at t o rne y, t he que st ioning sho uld have ceased be ca us e t he de fen da nt 's r eq ue st wa s a su fficie nt invo ca t io n o f his right to counse l
. Eich

wedel , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 397-98. Th us , i t rev ers ed the trial cou rt' s den i al of the def endan t's s uppre ssi on m otion
. Eich

wedel , 247 Ill . App. 3d at 399. S imila r ly, t he ap pe llat e c o ur t affir med a s up pr es sio n in Peop l e v . How erton, 33 5 I ll. App. 3d 1023 (2003)
. In How erton, the defen dant was taken i

nto custo dy

by police a nd he s t at ed t hat if he
was under arrest, then

the p oli ce shoul d take h i m "ups tai rs" or h e wan ted a l awy er. How erton, 335 I ll. App. 3d a t 102 4. Rat her t han t er minating t he inte rview , t he o ffi cer s co nt inued t o ba dge r t he de f en da n t, who five more t imes indicat ed t hat he wan ted a l awy er, until he answered the questions. How erton, 335 Ill . App. 3d at 1026. The appe l l ate courtde t er mined t ha t t he o nly r ea so nableNo. 2-- 09--0194

-20-

i nte rpreta ti on of def endan t's rem arks was that

he wa s i nv oki ng hi s ri gh t to coun se l f rom t he moment he stat ed that he wanted a lawy er or to be taken "upstairs." How erton, 33 5 I ll. App. 3d at 1026-27;
seealso Sm

i th , 469 U.S. at 93, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 492, 105 S. Ct . a t 491 (S upr eme Co ur t held t hat t he defend ant su fficie nt ly

i nv oke d h i s ri gh t to coun se l when i n r es pon se to whether h

e u nd ers tood that he had t he r ight t o a n at t or ney's pr ese nce d ur ing qu est ioning, t he de fendant st at ed " 'Uh, yeah. I'd li ke to do that'" (em

phasi s om i tted)). Li ke t he co ur t s in Eich

wedel and How erton, we fi

nd def endan t's request to call h

is atto rney an un amb igu o us in

voc ati on of h i s r i gh t to co unse l , a s def

en da n t' s req ue st was n ot tai n ted wi th he si tation orunce rt ainty. We find defend ant 's re que st dist inguishable fr om t he requests in the cases ci ted by the St ate, which all contain some lack of decisi

veness o rcla r it y in

the defendants' statements. See Da vis , 512 U.S. at 455, 129 L. E d. 2d a t 368 , 1 14 S . C t . a t 235 3 ( t he de fendant st at ed " 'Maybe I shou ld talk t o a lawyer' "); In r e Chr isto pher K. , 217 Ill . 2dat 374 (t he m in or asked the offi

cer " 'Do I need a lawyer?' "); People v . Oaks , 169 Ill . 2d 409 , 4 52 ( 199 6) (t he defen dant asked the off

ic er

" 'Should I see a lawy

er?' ") ; Peo ple v. Eva ns , 12 5 I ll. 2 d 5 0, 73 ( 19 88 ) ( t he de fen da nt inq uir ed if there was tim e to get the publ

ic defen der, the offi

cer repli ed that he wo uld st o p q ue st io ning an d c all one, and def

endan t stat ed " 'n

o, go ahead' "); People v . Krueger , 8 2 I ll. 2d 3 05, 311 (1 980 ) ( t he defend ant st at ed " '[M] aybe I o ught t o ha ve an attorney ' " ). Ha vi ng j us t i nte rvi ew ed de f en da nt f or ap pr o ximat ely

o ne ho ur an d k no win g fu t ur e in t er r o ga t io n w as imminen t , a r ea so nable o ffice rsho uld have kn own tha t de f en da nt wasreq

ue sti ng hi s a ttorn ey f orassist ance at t he imm

inent int er ro gat ion. Under th e c i rcum sta n ce s u n i qu e to th

i s def en da n t, he wa s c o nfine d t o his hospi tal be d, under
co nst ant police guard, hooked up t o se ve r al int r av en o us t ub es , an d p hysic ally unable t o r eac h a pho ne if o ne we r e a va ilable in his r o o m. T he t wo pe o ple wh o co uld ha ve as sis t ed de fen da nt in mak ing hisNo. 2-- 09--0194

2 McCaul ey and Sm i th contem

pla t ed t he de nia l o f an at t o rne y's a cc es s t o a d efe nd an t in
cu st o dy, despi

te the defen

dant's f ailure to in

voke the righ

t t o counsel, i

n the context of whe

ther police conduct aff

ectedthe defe

ndan t's wai ver of his righ

t t o counsel. In thi

s case, def

endan t did not argue that the police's f

ailure to all

ow him to contact hi s atto rney, as o pp o se d t o his me r e in vo ca t io n o f his right to counsel , aff

ected the waiv

er of his righ

t t o counsel

he allege dly pro vided a t t he beg inning of t he sec ond i

nterv i ew. The ref ore, we d o not ex plore t his is su e s pe cific ally bu t findt he co ur t 's r at io na le persuasive i

n regard t o fundamen

tal fai rness. -21- requestedphone cal

l we re Offi cer Gie

rtz and the nurse, nei

ther of whom

provided an

y assi stance. The precarious si

tua ti on i n wh i ch de f en da n t f oun d h i m se l f i s s om ew h at a n al ogou s to one i

n wh ic h
an at t or ney is app oint ed o r r et ained t o a ssist a de fendant but t he police refuse to gi v e h i m ac ce ss to t he de f en da nt. Li kedeny i ng an attorn ey ac ce ss to ade fen da nt in

cu st o dy, t he po lice he r e e ss en t ially
re fu sed t o a llow d efenda nt acc ess t o a pho ne t o c ont act his at t or ney, a nd by t he po lice's conduct , defend ant wa s le d t o be lieve t ha t he co uld not access h is atto rney . See People v . McCauley , 16 3 I ll. 2d 414 , 4 46 ( 199 4) (r eco gnizing t ha t a defen dant's ri ghts under Il

li nois Constitution are v

iolated whereth e op

por tuni ty to consult wi

th counsel

is frustrated by

the Stat e, consi derin

g that our "constitutional

and s t at ut or y policies * ** fa vor a pe rso n having the assistance of coun s el dur ing custodial i nte rrog ati on and contem

pla te pro hi bi ting i nterferen ce wi th that assi stance by

governm ental autho rities" (emphasis in or iginal )) ; Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 93 I ll. 2d 179, 189 (1982) (holdi ng that "when police, prior to o r durin

g custodial

in terro gation, refus e an attorney appointed o r ret ain

ed to assis

t a suspect access t o t he su spe ct , t her e ca n be no knowin g wai ver of the ri

ght to counsel

if the suspect ha s n ot been i nf orme d tha t the attorne

y waspres en

t and see ki ng to consul

t wi th h i m "). 2No. 2-- 09--0194

-22-

We also find misplac ed t he St at e's re liance o n Peop l e v . Vi l l al obos , 193 Ill . 2d 229(2000 ), Peo ple v. Yo ung , 365 Ill . Ap p. 3d 75 3 (200 6), Pe o ple v. Fa rr ell , 181 Ill . App. 3d 446 (1 989 ), and Pe o ple v. So mmer ville , 193 Ill . App. 3d 161 (1990 ), for t he pr op os itio n t hat defend ant 's st at ement was am bi guous. Vi

l l al obos is factual ly dis si mi la r because i

t inv olve d the defe

ndan t sign in g anoticeof -re pre senta ti on f orm at a bon d hea ri ng on an unr elated ch arge. Vi l l al obos , 193 Ill . 2d at 230-31. The sup re me co ur t det er mined t hat at t he bo nd heari ng the def endan t was nei ther bei ng i nterrogat ed
nor f aci ng i m m i nent i nterroga tion on the unr elated cr i me. Vi l l al obos , 193 Il

l . 2d at 24 0. In Fa rr ell , t he defend ant had no t sufficient ly i nvok ed his sixt h amendment right t o c ou nsel at his arr aignment hear ingwhen

he sa id t ha t he wo ul d r et ain his o wn co un se l bu t co ul d n o t na me t he at t o rne y. Fa rr ell , 181 Ill
. App. 3d at 44 9- 50 . H ere, we are n ot f ac ed wi th wh eth er de f en da n t i n v oke d h i s s i xth amendment r igh t t o co un se l, an d if so w h eth er th at tr i gg ered h i s f i f th am en dm en t righ t to coun se l on another crim e, but rather whether his request to call c ounsel while in cust od y and

facing immi

nent int er r o ga t io n inv o ke d h is fift h a men dme nt r igh t t o co un se l. Yo ung is d ist ing uis hable because in t ha t ca se t he de fen da nt cla imed his fa t he rha d in vo ke d h is right to co unse l for him wher e his fat her , w ho wa s in c us t o dy a lo ng wit h t he de fen da nt 's b r o t he r , t o ld po lice he wa s w ait ing fo rhis attorney. Yo ung , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 759. The father's

request for an atto rney seem in gly applie d to hi s own right to counsel , not t o t he ri ght of the def

enda nt or hi s brothe r, and theref

ore t he def

endan t had not i nv oked h i s ri ght to coun sel
. Yo ung , 36 5 I ll. App. 3d at 759-60. Sim

il arly distin guish able is So mmer ville . I n So mmer ville , t he de fen da nt pu r po rt ed ly t o ld his gi rl fri end to cal l h

is atto rney at the time of h is arrest, in the presence of arresting offi cers. So mmer ville , 193 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 168-69. T

he appe l l ate court

determi ned that the def

endan t faile d to in voke his righ

t t o counsel

wh en his a lleg ed st at eme nt t o ca ll his atto rney was not made to policeNo. 2-- 09--0194

-23-

but ra ther a thi rd party
. So mmer ville , 193 Ill . App. 3d at 169 -70 . He re, de f en da nt' s req ue st f oran atto rney wasne i ther m ade b y a thi rd par t y nor made t o a t hird p ar t y. De fendant 's r eq ue st t o ca ll his atto rney was unambiguo usly made by himself, for himself, and t o t he po lice o ffice rgu ar din g h im in his in t en sive ca r e h o sp it al r o o m. The St at e's a rg ument that d efendan t's request was unclea r be cau se he did no t st at e why he wanted to contact h

i s attorne y would requ

i re us to ignore the ci

rcumstances of def

endan t's uni que situ at ion, which we dec line to do. Although we

f i n d def en da n t' s req ue st u n am b i guous , O f

f i cer G i er tz was certainl

y a ll owed to ask clarif

yi ng questions i f h

e was confus ed. In fa

ct, we not e that the Da vis Courtacknowledged

t hat clarifying que st ions, t hou gh no t re quir ed, will ofte n be good po li ce practice
an d " wi l l m i ni m izethe ch an ceof a c onf es si on bei ng suppress ed due to subse quent judi ci alsecondgue ssing as t o t he mean

i ng of the s uspe ct's statem en t regard i ng c ouns el ." Da vis , 512 U.S. at 461, 129 L. E d. 2d at 37 3, 11 4 S
. Ct
. at 23 56
. Pe rhaps if Officer G iert z had ask ed d efenda nt an addi tional que sti on o rve r ba lly con ve yed de f en da nt' s req ue st to the i

nte rvi ew i ng of f i cers to al l owthem to act
on de f en da nt' s req ue st, we w oul

d n ot be r eq uir ed t o no w a na lyze t his is sue. However, nothin g was asked and nothin

g was done, an d w e c an co nsid er o nly d efe nd an t 's r eq ue st t o us e a t ele ph o ne t o ca ll his at t or ney on Fe bru ar y 27, 200 6, at 5: 45 p .m. and t he fact s and circums tan ces co nt ained in t he record. A cc ordi

ngl y , we consi der de f en da nt' s state men

t an uneq ui voc al an d un am bi guous i nv oca ti on o f his fif t h amendment right t o co un se l, t r ig ge r ing t he pr o t ec t io ns af fo r de d b y Edwards . Thus, we af f i rm t he t rial co ur t 's de cision t o s upp re ss d efenda nt 's su bseq uent statem en ts on F ebruary

28, 2006, and March

7, 2006.No. 2-- 09--0194

-24-

Because we ag

ree wi th the tria l courtthat defend ant effect ively i nvok ed his fifth a mendment right to counse l

on F ebruary

27, 200 6, at 5:45 p.m ., we need not analyze d efenda nt 's su bseq uent requests on February

28, March 2, and M arch 3.

III. CONCLUSION Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Af fi rmed. McL AR EN an d JOR GENSEN , JJ., c oncu

r.