Opinion ID: 521024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Robtoy's Confession

Text: 19 Robtoy contends that his confession is inadmissible because the police elicited it in violation of his fifth amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation. Robtoy contends that after he made an equivocal request for counsel, Detective Dean attempted to elicit incriminating remarks before Dean clarified whether Robtoy presently desired to speak to an attorney. Robtoy's contentions lack merit. 20 The fifth and fourteenth amendment right to counsel applies during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). If a suspect indicates in any manner that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Id. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. at 1612-13. Police questioning after an ambiguous or equivocal request for an attorney must cease, except that police may clarify the suspect's desire for counsel. United States v. Fouche, 833 F.2d 1284, 1287 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1756, 100 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988). The critical factor in determining the validity of the government's behavior is whether a review of the whole event discloses that the interviewing agent has impinged on the exercise of the suspect's continuing option to cut off the interview. Id. (citation omitted). 21 Here, the Kitsap County trial court ruled that the confession was admissible even though it was preceded by Robtoy's equivocal request for counsel. The trial court did not specifically evaluate whether Dean's follow-up questioning was limited to ascertaining whether Robtoy presently desired an attorney. However, the state trial court's written findings include a discussion of the dialogue between Robtoy and Dean after Robtoy's equivocal request. The state trial court found that Dean reinstructed him as to his rights; that the defendant understood them and understanding them did go ahead and make the statement that he wanted to [confess]--that he did because he wanted to. He felt it was going to be a thing that he ought to do. It seems implicit in the trial court's finding that Dean clarified Robtoy's desire to see an attorney before Dean resumed questioning about the crime. Moreover, the Washington Supreme Court, in affirming the Kitsap County Superior Court's ruling admitting the confession, found as follows: 22 After Robtoy made his equivocal statement regarding an attorney, Detective Dean sought clarification of Robtoy's words. There was no further interrogation about any offense until Dean was satisfied Robtoy toy had no present desire to have the presence of an attorney. Further, Robtoy was reminded by Detective Dean that he would cease questioning immediately if Robtoy wanted to remain silent or speak with an attorney. 23 State v. Robtoy, 98 Wash.2d at 41, 653 P.2d at 291. The factual findings of both state appellate and trial courts are presumed correct under section 2254(d) unless the hearing was procedurally defective in some manner not at issue here, the findings are not supported by the record, or the petitioner overcomes the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Fendler v. Goldsmith, 728 F.2d 1181, 1190-91 n. 21 (9th Cir.1983). 24 Here, the record supports the state courts' findings that Dean, before he resumed interrogation, ascertained that Robtoy had no present desire for counsel. Dean testified before the state trial court that after Robtoy's reference to counsel, Dean twice reminded him that questioning would stop if Robtoy wanted an attorney and both times Robtoy said that he understood. Dean further testified that he told Robtoy he would resume questioning and whenever Robtoy did not want to say anything more without an attorney, Robtoy could say so. Officer Simpson, who was present during Robtoy's interrogation, corroborated Dean's testimony. Dean's and Simpson's testimony show that Dean did not impinge ... on the exercise of the suspect's continuing option to cut off the interview. Fouche, 833 F.2d at 1287.