Document: 501 U.S. 171 111 S.Ct. 2204 115 L.Ed.2d 158 Paul McNEIL, Petitionerv.WISCONSIN. No. 90-5319. Argued Feb. 25, 1991. Decided June 13, Syllabus Charged with an armed robbery in West Allis, Wisconsin, petitioner McNeil was represented by a public defender at bail hearing. While jail on that charge, he questioned police about murder and related crimes Caledonia, Wisconsin. He advised of his Miranda rights, signed forms waiving them, made statements incriminating himself the Caledonia offenses. then formally charged latter crimes, pretrial motion to suppress denied, convicted. His conviction affirmed appeal, State Supreme Court holding accused's request for counsel initial appearance offense does not constitute invocation Fifth Amendment right precludes interrogation unrelated, uncharged Held: An Sixth during judicial proceeding derived v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, from Amendment's guarantee against compelled self-incrimination. Pp. 175-182. (a) The identity between two rights asserts is false as matter fact. right, which attach until initiation adversary proceedings, offense-specific, Maine Moulton, 474 159, 179-180 n. 16, 106 477, 488-489 88 481, its effect, under Michigan Jackson, 475 625, 1404, 89 631, invalidating subsequent waivers police-initiated questioning. Thus McNeil's respect Allis poses no bar admission regarding had been time statements. Moreover, although non-offense-specific, Arizona Roberson, 486 675, 108 2093, 100 704, and, once asserted, prevents any further outside presence counsel, Edwards 451 484-485, 101 1880, 1884-1885, 68 378, assertion cannot be inferred light differing purposes effects rights. intended protect unaided layman critical confrontations government after process particular crime, United States Gouveia, 467 180, 189, 104 2292, 2298, 81 146. Miranda-Edwards suspect's "desire deal only through counsel," Edwards, supra, U.S., 484, S.Ct., 1884. Requesting assistance attorney hearing satisfy minimum requirement some statement can reasonably construed expression desire dealing custodial police. 175-180. (b) Nor will this declare sound policy (assuming existence such expansive power) implies right. proposed rule offers insignificant advantages, would seriously impede effective law enforcement precluding uncounseled but uncoerced admissions guilt pursuant valid waivers. 180-182. 155 Wis.2d 24, 454 N.W.2d 742 (1990), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL BLACKMUN, Gary M. Luck, Milwaukee, Wis., petitioner. David J. Becker, Madison, respondent. Stephen L. Nightingale, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae, supporting respondent, special leave Court. Justice SCALIA 1 This case presents question whether constitutes counsel. 2 * Petitioner arrested Omaha, Nebraska, May 1987, warrant charging him suburb Milwaukee. Shortly arrest, Milwaukee County deputy sheriffs arrived Omaha retrieve him. After advising deputies sought refused answer questions, did attorney. promptly ended interview. 3 Once back brought before court commissioner charge. Commissioner set scheduled preliminary examination. Wisconsin Public Defender's office appearance. 4 Later evening, Detective Joseph Butts Sheriff's Department visited jail. assisting Racine County, their investigation murder, attempted burglary town Caledonia; suspect. form them. In first interview, deny knowledge said involved. 5 returned days later detectives Caledonia. again began encounter providing waiver form. placed initials next each warnings time, admitted involved described detail. also implicated other men, Willie Pope Lloyd Crowley. typed up detective given review. every reference page. 6 Police later, having meantime found Pope, who convinced them crimes. They interview administering warnings, obtaining petitioner's signature acknowledged lied Pope's involvement minimize own role provided another recounting events, transcribed, signed, initialed before. 7 following day, transferred jurisdiction. three denied. convicted second-degree first-degree robbery, sentenced 60 years prison. 8 On argued trial court's refusal reversible error. contended courtroom crime constituted questioning invalid. Observing State's never addressed issue, Appeals certified question: 9 "Does fifth amendment offenses?" App. 16. 10 answered "no." (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 ----, 340, 112 305 II 11 provides "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy . have Assistance Counsel defence." 631 (1986), we held has attached invoked, ineffective. It undisputed, accept present case, invoked charged. 12 however, offense-specific. future it prosecution commenced, is, " 'at or proceedings way formal hearing, indictment, information, arraignment.' 188, 2297, 146 (1984) (quoting Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 689, 92 1877, 1882, 32 411 (1972) (plurality opinion)). And just so Jackson effect interviews 13 "The interest investigating new additional [after individual one crime.] [T]o exclude evidence pertaining charges obtained, simply because were pending unnecessarily frustrate public's activities. ." 179-180, 488-489, 481 (1985). 14 "Incriminating yet attached, are, course, admissible those offenses." Id., 489, 15 See Moran Burbine, 412, 431, 1135, 1146, 410 (1986). Because issue here offenses (or even could been) case. relies, upon different "right text Amendment, Court's jurisprudence relating "[n]o person witness himself." 694 (1966), established number prophylactic designed counteract "inherently compelling pressures" interrogation, including present. hold, waived. contrary, recognized elicited if establish suspect "knowingly intelligently waived privilege self-incrimination retained appointed counsel." 475, 1628. 17 378 (1981), second layer prophylaxis counsel: must current cease, may approached "until available him," 1884-1885—which means, most recently held, present, Minnick Mississippi, 486, 489 If do subsequently initiate absence there break custody), are presumed involuntary therefore inadmissible substantive trial, where executes considered voluntary traditional standards. "designed prevent badgering defendant into previously asserted rights," Harvey, 494 344, 350, 110 1176, 293 rule, moreover, offense-specific: invokes offense, reapproached unless 704 (1988). 18 Having nature both "Fifth Amendment" come last here: seeks prevail combining contends that, expressly occasion interrogated, invalid product impermissible approaches, prior offense-specific regard non-offense-specific think fact inadvisable (if permissible) contrary-to-fact presumption policy. 19 As former: purpose guarantee—and hence invoking it—is "protec[t] confrontations" "expert adversary," government, "the adverse positions solidified" alleged crime. 2298. guarantee, hand—and quite interest: narrower than protected (because relates interrogation) broader suspected attaches "adversarial relationship" produced arisen). To invoke fact, interest. One might willing speak without concerning many matters, prosecution. said, perhaps, likely asked counsel's defending want unrelated That necessarily true, since suspects often believe they avoid laying demonstrating assurance innocence frank unassisted answers questions. But likelihood wish test applicability Edwards. applies when "ha[s] expressed sort lawyerly subject Miranda. 1884 (emphasis added). requires, minimum, bear construction. "[T]o find [the defendant] merely requesting appointment arraignment charge disregard ordinary meaning request." Stewart, 113 Wash.2d 462, 471, 780 P.2d 844, 849 (1989), cert. 1327, 502 20 Our not, asserts, contradict foregoing distinction; rests it. recalled, obtained (even purports waive rights) inadmissible. opposed outcome ground realistically (as required) interrogation. 632-633, 1408-1409. response contention expression, to, relevant our "settled approach questions requires us give broad, rather narrow, interpretation defendant's presume requests lawyer's services stage prosecution." 633, 1409 implicitly rejects equivalence necessary trigger real legally presumed) unnecessary go establish, did, policeinitiated interrogation; cited relied Edwards.1 21 There remains possibility though imply should Assuming power Constitution, wisely exercised. Petitioner's advantages. communicate except attorney, tell warnings. remotest chance feel "badgered" asking talk already requested (for event preclude interview) rejected interview). would, enforcement. accused, States, least serious offenses, free ordinarily requested. Thus, adopt persons custody unapproachable officers suspecting unwillingness questioned. Since ready ability obtain confessions evil unmitigated good, society loser. Admissions resulting "are more 'desirable'; essential society's finding, convicting, punishing violate law." Moran, 426, 1143 (citation omitted).2 22 urges desirability "clear unequivocal" guideline police: assist defense need guideline; free, wish, own. Of course task guidelines like unequivocal," see, e.g., 681-682, 2098-2099, guide sensibly, direction authorized go. proposal view much harm contained within, furtherance of, self-incrimination.3 23 "This forever adding stories temples constitutional law, collapsing story too added." Douglas Jeannette, 319 157, 181, 63 877, 889, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943) (opinion J.). decline add judgment 24 Affirmed. concurring. 25 I join respects. Its sensible recognition specific apply well Amendment. 688, 2101, (1988) (KENNEDY, dissenting). For custody, progeny far desires Limiting extraordinary protections increase risk induced official efforts wear down adopted devote attention bringing logical alignment, uniform, fair, workable justice system. 26 Even authorities prohibited connection 27 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 28 demeans importance practical matter, probably slight impact procedures. theoretical innovative development "offense-specific" limitation scope attorney-client relationship generate confusion undermine undergird adversarial system justice. symbolic today's decision ominous reflects preference inquisitorial regards lawyer impediment servant cause 29 predicate entire analysis failure make "statement police." Ante, 178. indicating house cards erected today collapse, (1988), 30 hearings, competent expected sure they, clients, record obviate consequences holding. why little, any, practices. 31 determined parsimonious description guaranteed definition inconsistent high value cases understanding accepted practice legal profession. initiating postarraignment notice lawyer. explaining required "to squarely suggestion respondents' representation proceedings." 1409. Instead, noted "it burden establishing [of counsel]. Doubts resolved favor protecting claim." Ibid. omitted). 33 Today, accepts same although, well, covers held. Today's construing ambiguous narrowly presuming opposite taken Jackson. 34 moreover common sense evaluation endorsed Jackson: 35 "We agree comments 36 'Although judges lawyers understand appreciate subtle distinctions average not. When either officer magistrate, know invoking; articulate exactly what seeking makes little afford relief asks permit identical judge. simple indicates sufficiently capable adversaries singlehandedly.' 421 Mich., 63-64, 365 N.W.2d, 67." 37 633-634, 7, 1409-1410, 7. 38 explains away commonsense stating "[t]hose observations perhaps true context deciding implied serve 'intermediary' charge[, t]hey assuredly undergo anything, present." 1. assuming explanation supported entirely separate explain reality known restricted investigations concurrent conducted overlapping personnel.1 39 Finally, characterization ignores substance profession developed over years. broad encompassed negotiations plea bargain contents presentence report. Any notion be, defined elements unrealistic invidious. Particularly implication favorable treatment told "his side story" officers, construal unsupported. 40 law. parties assumed analyzing issues, (murder) completely robbery. flesh out precise boundaries newly created venerable trust patterned double jeopardy jurisprudence, cf. Blockburger 284 299, 52 76 306 (1932), wonder how leeway accord file selectively order preserve opportunities particularly unquestioningly treat personnel. Whatever portend, dim "bright-line" quality Solem Stumes, 465 638, 1338, 79 579 (1984), III 41 final analysis, explained fear making "seriously enforcement." 180. magnitude alarm illuminated use italics: 42 "Thus, questioned." 43 wrong fears grossly exaggerated. exaggerated because, explained, affect very few future. misguided contrary detainees "unapproachable"; ensure truly voluntary. 44 A comport tradition. Undergirding line requiring follow fair procedures interrogate presumptively innocent citizens wrongdoing longstanding function effectively laypersons overreaching experienced skilled professionals. Whenever procedure describes societal "uncoerced confessions" "unmitigated good," revealing suggested (1986): 45 turns proper appraisal society. seen nettlesome obstacle pursuit wrongdoers—as society—then good sense. aid protection rights—as accusatorial all." 468, 1165 (STEVENS, 46 acknowledge "danger 'subtle compulsion' "2 kind evidences inability recognize difference Accordingly, respectfully dissent. footnote quoted approval 'understand counsel,' 'makes judge,' '[t]he Bladel, Mich. 39, 56, 67 (1984). Those "intermediary" dissent condemns these sentiments "revealing justice." Post, 189. imagine means. What less it; rather, judge inquisitor does) conduct factual himself, instead decides basis facts arguments pro con adduced parties. civil counsel; sometimes always been, investigatory grand jury body), disposition conceivable. bring impartial magistrates around interrogations, magistrate umpire. means "preference system" require interviewee it—that strange put it, guilty. predicts result routinely circumvented when, record" 184. anticipatorily, "custodial interrogation"—which always, usually, involve, Pennsylvania Muniz, 496 2638, ---- - 528 (1990) opinion); Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 298-303, 1682, 1688-1691, 64 297 (1980). argued, reason letter indeed identification Most take action against. allowed mean allow initially similar effect. Assuming, effective, made, mere adherence principle decisions substantial abandon principle. remain intolerable objection being unapproachable. apprehended arrest warrant, Deputy Sheriff Smukowski colleague department traveled transporting testified going aware Tr. 4-5 (Nov. 9, 1987). 21, talked transport "about robbery," id., operating "a case" provide one. 9. urged "tell cooperation help 8, leaving petitioner, used trying locate Crowley, Omaha. 13. members Chief Heffernan wrote: "It apparent danger nevertheless subjected while continues. Whether judge, appearance, dangers inherent pressure same. Just [v. (1981),] dependant neither dependent interrogated." 50, 742, 752-753 ex rel. Espinoza Fairman, 813 F.2d 117 (CA7

Category: 0