Opinion ID: 740029
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial References to Ross's Retention of Counsel

Text: 40 In his reply brief, Ross concedes that in almost all instances, either he or his trial attorney first mentioned his retention of counsel. He further concedes that there was no harm or error in the government eliciting the same information. Ross continues to contend, however, that the prosecution's reference to Ross's counsel in other contexts violates Miranda. Aside from the discussions that were proper exploration of Ross's retention of counsel, a topic to which Ross had already opened the door, we hold that the references to counsel were proper impeachment. See Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 89-90, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 1335-36, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976) (asking whether defendant reviewed testimony with a lawyer is proper impeachment).