Opinion ID: 2334182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to counsel, thus requiring suppression of his written confession?

Text: According to Officer Hewett's written report following the defendant's arrest, while Officer Hewett was transporting the defendant to the CJC, the defendant told the Officer that he intended to turn himself in after he got an attorney. Once they arrived at the police station, the defendant was read his Miranda rights. The defendant verbally waived his rights and then signed an acknowledgment of that waiver. At some point after the waiver was signed, the video recorder was turned on. The defendant argues that he made an unequivocal request for an attorney when he told Officer Hewett that he was planning on turning himself in after he got an attorney. Accordingly, it is his contention that any continued questioning by the police violated both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel.
The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), specifically provides that [n]o person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. U.S. Const. amend. V. The corresponding provision in the Tennessee Constitution provides [t]hat in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9. Encompassed within these provisions is the right to counsel, which is applicable whenever a suspect requests that counsel be present during police-initiated custodial interrogation. See State v. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d 239, 244 (Tenn.2003). When a suspect invokes his right to counsel, police must cease all questioning until counsel is present. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Saylor, 117 S.W.3d at 244. In Saylor , we clarified what constituted a valid invocation of the constitutional right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. We began by reiterating that the standard for a valid invocation of the right to counsel is the same under both constitutions. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d at 246. We then held: The accused must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable [police] officer. . . would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the suspect fails to make such an unambiguous statement, police may continue to question him without clarifying any equivocal requests for counsel. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). In Davis, the United States Supreme Court specifically refused to adopt a rule that would require officers to ask questions to clarify an accused's statements. 512 U.S. at 461-62, 114 S.Ct. 2350. In this case, the defendant told the transporting officer that he had planned to turn himself in after he got an attorney. The defendant merely mentioned a prior notion of obtaining counsel. He never requested an attorney following his arrest or suggested that he wished to speak with one in the future. The trial court found that this was not an unequivocal request for an attorney, and we agree.
The right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the assistance of counsel after adversarial criminal proceedings are initiated. The corresponding provision in the Tennessee Constitution is found in article 1, section 9, and provides that the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel. Unlike the Fifth Amendment, under the Sixth Amendment, the accused need not make an unequivocal request for counsel to invoke the right. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 633, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986). A presumption exists that the accused requests the services of counsel at every critical stage of the prosecution. Id. The purpose of the Sixth Amendment counsel guarantee  and hence the purpose of invoking it  is to `protec[t] the unaided layman at critical confrontations' with his `expert adversary,' the government, after `the adverse position of government and defendant have solidified' with respect to a particular alleged crime. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 177-78, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (citations omitted) (alteration in original). After the initiation of formal charges against an accused, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, guaranteeing the accused the right to rely on counsel as a medium between himself and the State in any critical confrontation with state officials. See Jackson, 475 U.S. at 629, 106 S.Ct. 1404; Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 669. In Tennessee, the adversarial judicial process is initiated at the time of the filing of the formal charge, such as the indictment or arrest warrant. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 669. Once formal criminal proceedings have begun, statements deliberately elicited from a defendant without an express waiver of the right to counsel are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The waiver of an accused's right to counsel after receiving Miranda warnings, or their equivalent, will generally suffice to establish a knowing and intelligent Sixth Amendment waiver of right to counsel, thus permitting the introduction of post-arrest statements. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292-93, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988). However, once the accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, the accused may not be subjected to further interrogation by authorities until counsel has been made available. Jackson, 475 U.S. at 636, 106 S.Ct. 1404. As stated previously, the defendant never requested assistance of counsel. The trial court found that the mention by the defendant to the arresting officer that he had intended to turn himself in after getting an attorney was not an invocation of his right, and we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against that conclusion. Additionally, the defendant waived any right that had attached by signing the waiver after receiving the Miranda warnings. See Patterson, 487 U.S. at 292-93, 108 S.Ct. 2389.