Opinion ID: 2594960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interrogation after Invoking Right to Counsel

Text: In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that an accused person in custody who has expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication with the police. 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. The Court further held that when an accused has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. Thereafter, in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986), the Court extended its holdings in Edwards to apply to a defendant who has been formally charged with a crime and has requested appointment of counsel at his arraignment. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a postarraignment interrogation requires at least as much protection as the Fifth Amendment right to counsel at a custodial interrogation. 475 U.S. at 632, 106 S.Ct. at 1408-09. Thus, under Jackson, where a defendant asserts his right to counsel at an arraignment by requesting the appointment of counsel, any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel during police-initiated interrogation is invalid. Under Jackson, the question we must answer in the present case is whether the interview conducted by DCI Agent Peters the day after Houghton invoked her right to counsel was police initiated. If it was not, if the interview instead could be said to have been initiated by Houghton, the Jackson rule does not apply, and we must then determine whether the purported waiver obtained from Houghton at the beginning of the interview was knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. Jackson, 475 U.S. at 633, 106 S.Ct. at 1409. In Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983), the Court held that the accused initiated conversation with the authorities by asking Well, what is going to happen to me now? The Court found that this question evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation and was not a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship. 462 U.S. at 1046, 103 S.Ct. at 2835. Applying this test, we are not persuaded that the interview conducted by DCI Agent Peters violated Houghton's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. By asking to speak with Police Officer Bergen, Houghton evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion with the authorities. That DCI Agent Peters, rather than Police Officer Bergen, spoke with her does not change our conclusion. The test is whether a defendant himself initiates dialogue with the authorities. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1044, 103 S.Ct. at 2834 (emphasis added) (quoting Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42, 46, 103 S.Ct. 394, 395, 74 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982)). Thus, where a defendant reinitiated communication with an FBI agent after earlier invoking his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, state law enforcement officials were not barred from questioning the defendant even though they were unaware of the reinitiation. Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d 1372, 1384 (5th Cir.1984). See also Hopkins v. State, 263 Ga. 354, 434 S.E.2d 459, 462 (1993). Here, after invoking her right to counsel at the July 24 court appearance, Houghton initiated contact with the authorities by requesting in writing on July 25 to speak with Officer Bergen. We turn, therefore, to the question whether the waiver obtained by Agent Peters on August 1 was knowing and intelligent. Houghton was advised at her court appearance on July 24, 1995, that she had the right to counsel and to remain silent and that if she chose not to exercise her rights anything she said could be used against her. The same day, Houghton signed a written statement of her constitutional rights indicating that she had read the statement and fully understood her rights. On July 25, 1995, the day after she was informed of her rights and requested that an attorney be appointed, Houghton made a written request to speak with Police Officer Bergen. Testimony at the suppression hearing reflected that Houghton asked to speak with Bergen because she viewed him as a friend. On July 31, 1995, Houghton signed another statement of her rights and acknowledged that she understood them. Counsel was appointed to represent her that same day. The next day, DCI Agent Peters met with Houghton in an interview room at the police department. Peters testified, and his report reflects, that he advised Houghton of her Miranda rights and she agreed to talk to him. According to Peters, Houghton expressed no hesitancy in talking with him. After talking with him for some period, Houghton stated she did not wish to talk any further and wanted to speak with an attorney before she made any more statements. After this interview, Houghton made phone calls to Peters on at least two occasions and spoke with Police Officer Bergen on one occasion as well. Given the totality of these circumstances, we hold that Houghton knowingly and intelligently waived her Sixth Amendment right to counsel and her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Prior to agreeing to talk with Agent Peters, Houghton was advised of her rights on at least three occasions and knew that counsel had been appointed to represent her. Despite having been informed of her rights, Houghton initiated contact with the authorities by requesting to speak with a police officer. Despite the knowledge that counsel had been appointed to represent her, Houghton agreed to talk with Agent Peters. That she invoked her right to silence and to counsel during the interview with Peters is evidence that she understood her rights. That she later reinitiated contact with Peters and spoke with Officer Bergen without her attorney present even after invoking her rights during the August 1 interview is evidence that she freely and voluntarily chose to communicate with the authorities without her attorney present. The district court did not err in finding that Houghton's statements were admissible and that the motion to suppress should be denied. On remand, Houghton's statements to Peters are admissible as evidence in the new trial.