Document: 487 U.S. 285 108 S.Ct. 2389 101 L.Ed.2d 261 Tyrone PATTERSON, Petitionerv.ILLINOIS. No. 86-7059. Argued March 22, 1988. Decided June 24, Syllabus After being informed by police that he had been indicted for murder, petitioner, who was in custody, twice indicated his willingness to discuss the crime during interviews initiated authorities. On both occasions, petitioner read a form waiving rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, initialed each of five specific warnings on form, and signed form. He then gave inculpatory statements The Illinois trial court denied motions suppress constitutional grounds, were used against him at trial. State Supreme Court affirmed conviction, rejecting contention received, while adequate protect Fifth Amendment as guaranteed Miranda, did not adequately inform Sixth right counsel. Held: postindictment questioning produced petitioner's incriminating violate Pp. 290-300. (a) Petitioner cannot avail himself argument that, because counsel arose with indictment, thereafter barred from initiating questioning, since no time sought have present. essence Edwards 451 477, 1880, 68 378, its progeny, which relies, is preservation integrity an accused's choice communicate only through Had wanted counsel's assistance, would stopped, further forbidden unless meeting. Michigan Jackson, 475 625, 106 1404, 89 631. However, once accused "knowingly intelligently" elects proceed without counsel, uncounseled makes need be excluded 290-291. (b) Petitioner's violated waive present merit. minimum determining whether waiver "knowing intelligent" made sufficiently aware possible consequences decision forgo aid Here, admonishing warnings, respondent met this burden, valid. First, telling consult attorney, lawyer questioned, even appointed if could afford one, authorities conveyed sum substance rights. Second, informing any statement him, ultimate adverse consequence what "do him" questioning: namely, advise refrain making such statements. inability here articulate precision additional information should provided before competent supports conclusion satisfies minimum. 292-297. (c) This has never adopted suggestion "superior" or "more difficult" than counterpart. Rather, cases, defined scope pragmatic assessment usefulness particular stage proceedings question, dangers proceeding stage. An these basic facts. are sufficient purpose context, because, stage, role relatively simple limited, disadvantages self-representation less substantial more obvious they 297-300. 116 Ill.2d 290, 107 Ill.Dec. 690, 507 N.E.2d 843, affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. ---. STEVENS, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, Donald S. Honchell, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Jack Donatelli, respondent. Andrew J. Pincus, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, supporting respondent, special leave Court. Justice WHITE 1 In case, we called determine interrogation after indictment 2 * Before dawn August 21, 1983, other members "Vice Lords" street gang became involved fight rival gang, "Black Mobsters." Some fight, former member Black Mobsters, James went home where Vice Lords fled. A second broke out there, three beating Jackson severely. put into car, drove end nearby street, left face down puddle water. Later morning, discovered dead, left. 3 That afternoon, local officers obtained warrants arrest Lords, charges battery mob action, connection first fight. One arrested concerning fight; also implicated several (including petitioner) Jackson's murder. few hours later, apprehended. 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), volunteered answer questions police. initial between gangs, but knowing anything about death. held custody following day, law enforcement completed their investigation 4 23, Cook County grand jury two murder Jackson. Police Officer Michael Gresham, questioned earlier, removed lockup held, told transferred jail. asked Gresham charged upon learning one Lord omitted indictments, asked: "[W]hy wasn't indicted, everything." App. 7. began explain there witness support account crime. 5 At point, interrupted handed contained suggested Court's decision, make might police.1 aloud, along him. lengthy murder; described detail Lords—including himself—in 6 confessed involvement time. confession came interview Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) George Smith. outset interview, Smith reviewed previously signed, confirmed understood procedure again: reading rights, having sign addition, working investigating case. another 7 trial, moved statements, arguing manner odds various guarantees. motions, found guilty sentenced 24-year prison term. 8 appeal, argued waived confessions. contended purposes protecting however, rejected theory, applying previous People Owens, 102 88, 79 663, 464 261, cert. denied, 469 963, 105 362, 83 297 (1984), defendant questioning. Thomas, 298-300, 693-94, 846-847 (1987). 9 reaching conclusion, noted reserved question occasions2 lower courts divided issue. Id., 299, 693, N.E.2d, 846. We granted petition certiorari, 484 895, 227, 98 186 (1987), resolve split authority address issues open. II 10 There can doubt assistance Our cases it plain guarantees criminal defendants. 629-630, 1407-1408, 631 (1986); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 398-401, 97 1232, 1239-1241, 51 424 (1977); Massiah United States, 377 201, 205-207, 84 1199, 1202-1204, 12 246 (1964).3 asserts ways. A. 11 claim meeting See Brief 30-31; Tr. Oral Arg. 2, 9, 11, 17. equates preindictment suspect who, interrogated, counsel; 378 (1981), may again initiates Petitioner, exercise fact existence i.e., does distinguish interrogatee whose available questioned. authorities' (unless meeting). our holding supra, applied context. observe analysis rendered wholly unnecessary position correct: completely approaching case them. turned "ha[d] help lawyer" dealing 631, 633-635, S.Ct., 1409-1411. 13 bottom, theory squared rationale Edwards, relies support. rested view "an . ha[s] expressed desire deal counsel" "not [be] subject until communication." 484-485, 1884-1885; cf. Mosley, 423 96, 104, n. 10, 96 321, 326 46 313 (1975). Preserving progeny—not barring election will go alone. If pursues latter course, see reason why must B 14 principal validly interviews. Since clear given voluntarily answered claiming silence executed written issue posed right.4 401, 404, 1240-41, 1242; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464-465, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). 15 past, valid when reflects intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege." 464, 1023. words, "kno[w] doing" so "his eyes open." Adams States ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 279, 63 236, 87 268 (1942). arising Amendment, requirement "a full awareness nature abandoned abandon it." Moran Burbine, 412, 421, 1135, 1141, 410 (1986). Whichever formulations used, key inquiry be: Was accused, counsel? convinced burden valid.5 By retain own, ASA "Indeed, seems self-evident he" "is curious posture later complain" unknowing. Cf. 431 181, 188, 1814, 1819, 52 238 (1977). little possibly effort satisfy portion inquiry. 17 served knew subsequent proceedings. suffered virtue admissions warning sufficed—contrary here, 7-8—to let know statements.6 done make, therefore, benefit essentially going nonetheless lacked complete appreciation all flowing" waiver, defeat showing satisfied Oregon Elstad, 470 298, 316-317, 1285, 1296-1297, 222 (1985). 18 supported inability, All brief reply suggest "right broad protection counsel"—a rather nebulous suggestion—and "gravity [his] situation." Reply 13; 30-31. But surely "requirement" (if one) formally 8, infra. Under close same point argument, likewise failed meaningful been, not, advance counsel.7 discussions favorable decisions, similarly lacking.8 19 As general matter, then, admonished prescribed 479, 1630, apprised abandoning those basis considered intelligent one.9 feel recent equally apposite here: "Once determined suspect's rely uncoerced, times stand mute request lawyer, intention use secure matter law." 422-423, 1142. C 20 consequently reject some acceptance commentators,10 "the sixth amendment [to counsel] far superior fifth right" "[t]he greater loss right," effectuate 23. While recognized "difference" "policies" behind guarantees,11 "greater" other, nor notion involved, difficult 21 Instead, taken approach question—asking serve provide stage—to type procedures required recognized. 22 spectrum, concluded whatsoever photographic display identification, "require[s] coping legal problems adversary." Ash, 413 300, 313-320, 93 2568, 2575, 37 619 (1973). extreme, recognizing enormous importance attorney plays imposed most rigorous restrictions defendant, observed, permitting Faretta California, 422 806, 835-836, 95 2525, 2541-2542, 45 562 (1975); Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 723-724, 316, 323-324, 92 309 (1948). extreme others fall poles, proceeding, "knowing" 23 Applying approach, whatever suffice § context take step commence formal adversarial substantially increase value expand limited serves With respect inquiry, do discern difference custodial interrogation, questioning.12 24 Thus, require searching questioning—not "less important" (the "hierarchical" suggest)—but "dangers self-representation," Faretta, 835, 2541, trial.13 Because problem limited. So long self-representation" intelligent." III 25 confessing meticulously right. separate elected speak directly officials believe intelligent," find error permit confessions Consequently, judgment 26 Affirmed. 27 dissenting. 28 I agree STEVENS says 301. I, merely hold adversary commenced, mandates " 'subject communication, exchanges, conversations police.' 626, 1405, (1986), quoting 1884-1885, (1981). 29 majority concludes, ante, 290—291: "The questioned." disagree. "[W]hen Constitution grants furnished requested appointment counsel." Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 513, 884, 889, 70 (1962) (internal quotations omitted). my view, allow prosecution undue advantage gap commencement process defendant. 30 whom MARSHALL join, 31 condone unethical forms preparation prosecutors investigators. civil litigation improper her adversary's client either notice opposing permission court.1 attempt obtain evidence back one's serious breach professional ethics manifestly unfair practice. ethical rules apply and, notions fairness least demanding enforced. 32 empaneled progress, obviously prosecutor conduct private obtaining "private interview" mean, prosecutor, agents, defendant's court. Even commenced giving items advice mandated 288, 1, promptly unanimously condemn shabby suggests, practice simply constitute violation, rise level impairment counsel.2 33 raises, become impermissible party? Several alternatives conceivable: commences, actually accepted representation appointed, commences. demands firm unequivocal line drawn commence. 34 prior strong language emphasize significance Such employed decisions denying settings, evenhanded interpretation automatically attach moment begin. example Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 1877, 411 (1972), rule requiring presence pretrial, lineup identifications, Wade, 388 218, 1926, 1149 (1967); Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 (1967), extend defendants yet charged. Stewart's plurality explained charge: 35 initiation judicial mere formalism. It starting whole system justice. For government committed itself prosecute, positions solidified. finds faced prosecutorial forces organized society, immersed intricacies substantive procedural law. marks 'criminal prosecutions' alone explicit applicable. Powell Alabama, 287 [45] 66-71 [53 55, 63-65, 77 158 (1932) ]; [84 246]; Spano New York, 360 315, 324 [, 1202, 1207-1208, 1265] (Douglas, concurring)." 689-690, 1882-1883 (footnote 36 Similarly, Gouveia, 467 180, [104 2292, 81 146] relied absence charge concluding indigent inmates confined administrative detention investigate activity. Again "given unaided layman critical confrontations adversary, attaches 'is formalism.' 689 [92 1882]." 189, 104 2298. Most recently, upheld pretrial though "would valid" situation arisen 296—297, 9. explained: 38 "It clear, absent occurring charging initially attaches. 187 2296-97, (1984); 1882, 411] (1972) (opinion Stewart, J.). 400-401 [97 1240-1241]. And readily attached, follows interfere efforts act ' "medium" [the suspect] State' interrogation. Maine Moulton, 474 159, 176 [106 487, 88 481] (1985); 8]. difficulty sessions yielded took place 'adversary proceedings.' 192 2299-2300]." 428, 1144-1145. 39 Today, interest unfettered concerns, backs away attributed majority's purported properly equated unindicted suspect. Yet, Kirby, Moran, important differences two.3 return like instrument, alters relationship state accused. Only accusation [have] solidified." 689, 1882. Moreover, presumably signals government's establish prima facie result, designed buttress case; longer attempting 'to solve crime.' Mohabir, 624 F.2d 1140, 1148 (CA2 1980) (quoting Waterman, N.Y.2d 561, 565, 216 N.Y.S.2d 70, 73-75, 175 445, 447 (1961)); 430, 1146. Given concomitant shift think quite wrong offered party—provide undoubtedly prejudicial—and, unfair—practice trained personnel prosecuting attorneys as-of-yet unrepresented 40 well settled presumption protections, 633, 1409; 723, 323, (1948) (plurality opinion); (1938), 241-42, (1942) (accused "may Constitutional knows doing open"). Warnings party, detailed cursory, high standard. 41 premises lay accepting assumption "what 'do him' [him] [incriminating] statements." Ante, 294 omitted).4 gross understatement disadvantage understand waiver.5 example, examine sufficiency submitting likely considerably skillful negotiating plea bargain negotiations fruitful pending him—advice insist allowing enter Henderson Morgan, 426 637, 2253, 49 (1976). Without defining precisely conceded minimal necessary—the self-representation." 42 certain solidified, inescapably Appeals recognized, constraints prevent adversary.6 neither agents ethically kind precede evidence-gathering commenced. Indeed, themselves species indictment. 43 good reasons deemed unethical, custodial, setting unequaled strength. offering lead underestimate true posture. incarcerated defendant—in 17-year-old 44 indictment—the someone extent overcome perhaps most, foe friend. parties, fully solidified brought, inevitably tend color offered. hard try, wear hat effective adviser wearing authority. Finally, regardless understands factual state's (or agents) evident conflict create public perception unfairness conduct. earlier Term, "courts independent ensuring trials conducted within standards profession appear fair them." Wheat 486 153, 160, 1692, 1697, 100 140 (1988). factor deciding override conflict-free representation, ibid., likewise, based ever appropriate.7 sum, careful discussion pitfalls waived. moreover, advice. solidifies, party "dilut[ing] afforded counsel," 171, 485, 481 Although ground enough interviews, presents added drawing easily identifiable investigatory stages proceeding. clarity definition govern citizen. Arizona Roberson, 675, 2093, 704 true, opportunity engage incommunicado beyond control, able receive constitutionally entitled. singleminded concentration toleration similar practices communications intolerable therefore respectfully dissent. record appendix, concedes (1966). 3; 6-8. apparently included remain silent; say him; attorney; interrogation; indigent, desired. See, e.g., 635-636, 1411, 1144, 405-406, 1242-1243, note retained, appointment, represent Once distinct set safeguards aimed preserving sanctity attorney-client takes effect. 176, 487-88, much argument. 28. changes markedly requests supra; Part II-A, Of voluntary. contested voluntariness intermediate appellate courts, coerced. Ill.App.3d 425-426, 94 890, 894, 488 1283, 1287 maintained event, press here. "voluntariness" us. aspect him—only validity extends far. binding wished be. precedents, changed mind, immediately dissolve effectiveness 631-635, 1408-1411; supra. today nothing change rule. understanding attorney's different phases needs perform varied functions—some entirely layman. Yet lawyer's unidimensional: largely advising ones decline answer. below. II-C, Representative excerpts relevant portions include following: "QUESTION: [Petitioner] "MR. HONCHELL [petitioner's counsel]: told—the word 'counsel' used. method alert You mean said you instead just, "He [he] confession. Now, addition one? HONCHELL: meaningfully because— What knowing? convey express intended [that] intelligently waive? behalf Well, okay. said, saying your you? magic solution? method, yes." 7-8. adding words "who you" improvement warnings. 435-436, 5, 1258 (WHITE, dissenting). something is—or be—required just "something more" Felder McCotter, 765 1245, 1250 (CA5 1985); Robinson Percy, 738 214, (CA7 1984); Fields Wyrick, 706 879, 880-881 (CA8 1983). exception occasional sought. 1150 1980); Payton, 615 922, 924-925 (CA1), 446 969, 2950, 64 830 (1980). Because, informed, 3, Nor pass desirability accused—a reasonably debated. 24. Beyond this, Appeals—the Second Circuit—has requirements (in ) effectuated F.2d, 1150-1153. Courts Appeals, Mohabir "additional" situation, "neutral officer." Ibid. challenges fail whenever challenged muster Miranda. permitted trying reach questioning; 424, 1142, Likewise surreptitious conversation undercover officer give violation "interrogation" setting, 475, 1628; prohibited. Henry, 264, 273, 274-275, 2183, 2188-2189, 65 115 Amendment's relationship—"the 'medium' accused] State"—extends Miranda's purposes. 632, 1409. 1149-1152; Note, Proposed Requirements Waiver Right Counsel, Colum.L.Rev. 363, 372 (1982). 7, 1409-10, 7; Rhode Island Innis, 291, 4, 1682, 1689 note, incidentally, itself, disposition (1938)—a 1628. From outset, focuses guarantee gives ibid.; 1140-1141. surprise now similarity knowledge accorded Comment, Law—Right Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 399, 409 discussed above, 6, gifted adhere evidence, comprehend subtleties voir dire, cross-examine witnesses effectively accused), object questions, more. Cf., Bench Book District Judges 1.02-2—1.02-5 (3d ed. 1986); McDowell 980, 478, 492 (1987) denial certiorari). Disciplinary Rule 7-104 ABA Model Code Professional Responsibility (1982) provides part: "(A) During course shall not: "(1) Communicate cause represented consent representing authorized so." Likewise, 4.2 Rules Conduct (1984) provides: "In client, "if initiate assertion, arraignment police-initiated invalid." 636, 1411. invalid received 627, 1406. holdings (1964), (1980), (1985), bypass favor direct engaged secret attempts elicit informants. turn primarily covert 400, 1240, (1977) ("That elicited surreptitiously otherwise irrelevant"). finding which, 641, 1408 (REHNQUIST, wrote Moulton: attached asserted, honor it. means imposes affirmative obligation preserve seek assistance. occasions clarify regard, very least, circumvents thereby dilutes 170-171, 274, 2188-89 ("By intentionally creating induce Henry Government Henry's counsel") omitted); Massiah, 206, 1203 ("We protections Amendment] own federal deliberately counsel"). parte communication defendant—regardless warnings—can viewed "circumven[t]" "dilut[e] 484. Other fundamentally conferring increased interactions made—and person 'suspect' 'accused' meaning Amendment—the employ techniques eliciting proper investigation. employment cellmate, [100 115] electronic surveillance third [474 (1985) methods permissible indictment." 1409 Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 50, 103 394, 397-98, 74 214 (MARSHALL, "petitioner's 294. Additional—although exhaustive—possible articulated. Callabrass, 458 F.Supp. 964, 967 (SDNY 1978). fashioning boilerplate unlike imparted vary facts, issues, parties differ. Respondent, argue comprehensive (1975), extended waivers counsel—and conversely counsel—is premise skills sit idle Both events considerable experience expertise reluctant rank over other. Escobedo 1758, 977 (1964): "[T]he 'right [would be] hollow thing [if], practical purposes, conviction already assured examination.' re Groban, 352 330, 344, 510, 519, 376 (Black, 'One imagine cynical saying: "Let them illustrious now. They can't escape noose. trial." Ex Sullivan, 514, 517-518." 487-488, 1763-1764 226, 1931-32, 325, 326, 1209, 1265 (1959) concurring). discussing supplement customary Circuit wrote: "We policy reasons, grounded considerations, adopting alternative points 'is, many senses, such, counselled advice'; proposition, cites Responsibility, DR 7-104(A)(2).14 "14 7-104(A) "During so. "(2) Give interests reasonable possibility client." 1152 Wheat, sustained 172, ---- (STEVENS,

Category: 0