Opinion ID: 1962224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inquiries about Counsel

Text: When Acquin said, I think I better get a lawyer, Hamila, who was questioning him, stopped immediately and reported the request to his superior, McDonnell. McDonnell proceeded to ask further questions of the defendant in an attempt to ascertain whom he wanted to represent him. McDonnell offered to call: Acquin's previous attorney, any other attorney, and the public defender. Acquin said he didn't want any of them. McDonnell then offered to find Acquin's brother, who he thought was in the building someplace and have him obtain an attorney. Again Acquin refused the offer, indicating that he didn't want his brother to know that he was involved.... On further inquiry about how to find a lawyer, Acquin indicated that it wasn't really an attorney that he wanted, it was just somebody that he could trust, and asked that Albert be present before he made a statement. Acquin told McDonnell that as soon as Dr. Albert got there that he would tell... the truth about what happened the night before. McDonnell then ordered a search for Albert. The questions asked by McDonnell were not interrogation. They were not of the kind likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rather, they were limited to information which would allow McDonnell to comply with the defendant's request for counsel by ascertaining who should be called. Questions of this type, when limited to finding the attorney of the suspect's choice, are not forbidden by Miranda and its progeny. The right to counsel is of little use to an accused if police are not allowed to ascertain whom to summon. McDonnell suggested several different ways for the defendant to obtain legal advice, and even offered to call the defendant's brother. Such carefully limited questions cannot reasonably be considered interrogation, and would be proper whether or not the defendant's request for counsel was equivocal. See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc). [11] 2