Opinion ID: 1482099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged State v. Reed violation

Text: Defendant raises multiple arguments in support of his claim that his statements to interrogators must be suppressed. We start with his contention that the requirements of Reed, supra, were transgressed because the prosecutor failed to inform him that a lawyer had contacted the prosecutor on defendant's behalf while defendant was being interrogated. Defendant argues that that failure infringed on his exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that [n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. U.S. Const. amend. V. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court established that when a person in police custody is questioned, that person must be told that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, 16 L.Ed. 2d at 706-707. A waiver of those Miranda rights, protecting as they do a suspect's privilege against self-incrimination, must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating that a waiver has met that test. Ibid. From that well-known rule, the United States Supreme Court and this Court have established certain precepts concerning what is a knowing waiver of a defendant's Miranda rights. While the United States Supreme Court has held that the failure of the police to inform a defendant that his attorney was available to assist him is irrelevant to the assessment of a suspect's waiver of his Miranda rights, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed. 2d 410 (1986), defendant makes an argument based on additional protections provided under State law. Specifically, defendant contends that his protections under Reed, supra, have been transgressed. In Reed, we noted that in New Jersey the privilege against self-incrimination derives from the common law and is codified in our statutes and rules. 133 N.J. at 250, 627 A. 2d 630; see also N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-19; N.J.R.E. 503. We considered in Reed whether our State's separate interest in preserving a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination would be served if we were to follow the approach taken in Moran, supra . The defendant in Reed was being questioned about a murder he claimed to have witnessed. His girlfriend retained an attorney for him and that attorney attempted to consult with the defendant while he was at the prosecutor's office. The attorney was turned away, however, with the explanation that the defendant was not a suspect and that the attorney had no right to walk into an investigation. The attorney was assured that he would be called if and when the defendant requested an attorney. Defendant's questioning continued, but he was not informed that his attorney was physically present at the office and was attempting to confer with him. After the defendant waived his Miranda rights, he confessed to committing the murder. Reed, supra, 133 N.J. at 242-244, 627 A. 2d 630. In that context, we declined to follow the standard for a knowing waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination that was established by the Supreme Court in Moran. We held that when an attorney, who either has been retained on behalf of a person in custody on suspicion of a crime or has represented or is representing the suspect on another matter, is present or readily available to assist a suspect in custody being questioned, the police must communicate that information to the suspect in order for the suspect to make a knowing waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination. Reed, supra, 133 N.J. at 269, 627 A. 2d 630. In such circumstances, depriving a suspect of the knowledge that his or her attorney is present or readily accessible renders invalid the suspect's subsequent waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination. Ibid. A key element to the holding was that an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant and the attorney. Id. at 261, 627 A. 2d 630. Such a relationship exists when the suspect specifically requests an attorney, when the suspect, his or her family, or friends have retained an attorney on his behalf in the matter, or when the attorney has represented or is representing the suspect on another matter. Ibid. Notably, the rule laid down in Reed does not distinguish between a defendant who privately retains counsel and a defendant who obtains counsel through the public defender. If the defendant asks for representation, or already has an attorney-client relationship with a privately retained or publicly provided counsel, then the Reed obligation comes into force. Thus, Reed permits a defendant to receive the benefit of his or her representation by retained counsel when waiving the privilege against self-incrimination. Reed does not permit law enforcement to thwart an existing attorney-client relationship by denying to the defendant knowledge that his counsel is present or readily accessible before the defendant knowingly chooses to waive his or her privilege against self-incrimination. We find no Reed violation in this case, although by that we intend no implicit approbation of the prosecutor's course of conduct. We simply agree with the Appellate Division's conclusion that an attorney-client relationship did not exist between defendant and the public defender at the time that the public defender made his inquiry to the prosecutor. The record does not indicate that the public defender told the prosecutor that he was representing defendant; indeed the public defender was asking only whether the charges for which defendant was arrested on the warrant were of such a nature as to trigger public defender representation. As they involved disorderly persons offenses, they were not, and no one argues to the contrary. [5] The public defender did not represent defendant on the unrelated disorderly persons charge for which he had been arrested, and defendant had not yet been charged with the Suhan murder. The circumstances here are not analogous to the representation that had commenced and was denied to the defendant in Reed. We decline to extend Reed by finding a violation in this case.