Opinion ID: 1674873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Defendant Unlawfully Deprived of Counsel?

Text: The position of the defendant in this respect is founded upon the contention that his statement made near the end of the interrogation which began on Friday night, to wit, Maybe I should talk to an attorney, constituted a request for counsel under Miranda and that any interrogation thereafter was unlawful. We have already fully set forth the circumstances. The salient facts in the case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684, are almost identical with those here, and the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in that case governs here and requires a determination adverse to the defendant's position. In State v. Moore, 189 Neb. 354, 202 N.W.2d 740, we summarized the pertinent holding in Frazier as follows: There the court held that there was no denial of the right to counsel by the police on interrogation of a suspect, so as to render a confession inadmissible in a State prosecution, notwithstanding the suspect showed signs of reluctance during questioning and stated: `I think I had better get a lawyer before I talk any more. I am going to get into trouble more than I am in now.' The officer replied: `You can't be in any more trouble than you are in now.' The court said it was possible that the questioning officer took the defendant's remark not as a request that the interrogation cease but merely as a passing comment. The defendant did not pursue the matter but continued answering questions.