Opinion ID: 2972900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suppression of Confession

Text: Bowlson was initially charged by state authorities only with the fifth bank robbery. Counsel was appointed to represent him on that charge. When the federal government decided to prosecute, the state charge was dismissed and Bowlson was subsequently arrested and interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During the FBI interview, Bowlson confessed to all five robberies and admitted using a gun. He now contends that his confession to the FBI must be suppressed because any questioning of him after the appointment of his counsel on the state charge violated the Sixth Amendment. “The Sixth Amendment right . . . is offense specific. It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced. . . . And just as the right is offense specific, so also its . . . effect of invalidating subsequent waivers in police-initiated interviews is offense specific.” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991). In this case, the government agreed that it would not introduce into evidence Bowlson’s confession to the fifth robbery. Since the state charged Bowlson and appointed him counsel only for the fifth robbery, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel only applied to that offense. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Bowlson’s motion to suppress the portion of his confession regarding the other robberies that was offered by the government.