Document: 494 U.S. 344 110 S.Ct. 1176 108 L.Ed.2d 293 MICHIGAN, Petitionerv.Tyris Lemont HARVEY. No. 88-512. Argued Oct. 11, 1989. Decided March 5, 1990. Syllabus Following respondent Harvey's arraignment on rape charges and the appointment of counsel for him, he told a police officer that wanted to make statement, but did not know whether should talk his lawyer. Although record is unclear as entire context discussion, Harvey need speak with attorney, because "his lawyer was going get copy statement anyway." then signed constitutional rights waiver form made detailing version events night in question. When testimony at state-court bench trial conflicted police, court allowed State use impeach testimony. He convicted first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Michigan Court Appeals reversed. That ruled inadmissible even impeachment purposes, it taken violation Sixth Amendment right counsel, citing v. Jackson, 475 625, 106 1404, 89 631. The concedes transgressed rule which held once defendant invokes any right—even if voluntary, knowing, intelligent under traditional standards—is presumed invalid given police-initiated evidence obtained pursuant prosecution's case chief. Held: A Jackson may be used defendant's based identical "prophylactic rule" announced Edwards Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378, Fifth privilege against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation. Moreover, Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 1, subsequent cases have voluntary statements prophylactic rules, while chief, nevertheless conflicting There no reason different result case. argument distinguishing such from that, adversarial process commenced time violation, postarraignment interrogations implicate guarantee itself, whereas prearraignment violations relate only procedural safeguards are themselves constitutionally protected rights—is without merit. Nothing prevents suspect charged crime represented by voluntarily choosing, own, absence an attorney. Cf. Patterson Illinois, 487 285, 2389, 261. view would render wholly unnecessary, waivers defendant-initiated conversations per se involuntary or otherwise invalid, unless were first notified. alternative assertion—that who took affirmatively misled him therefore violated "core value" Amendment's guarantee, purported purposes—is also unavailing, since present insufficient determine there knowing rights. Pp. 348-354. Reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 355. Timothy A. Baugham, petitioner. Robert M. Morgan, Detroit, Mich., respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 In 631 (1986), established secured conversation. We admitted substantive question presented this prosecution false inconsistent hold do so. 2 Respondent Tyris two counts conduct connection Audrey Sharp June 1986. into custody July 2, 1986, date, investigating officer. arraigned later appointed him. More than months later, another second discussion clear record, App. 32-33 (stipulation prosecution). form, initialed portions advising remain silent, before questioning, prior questioning. Pet. Cert. 3a-4a.1 Asked understood rights, answered affirmatively. gave 11. 3 At trial, testified visited her home 2:30 a.m. date asked telephone. After placing call, confronted barbecue fork, struggle ensued. According Sharp, struck face, threatened fork pair garden shears, eventually threw floor kitchen. she ran living room escape, pursued weapons, demanded take off clothes, forced engage acts. 4 own defense account night's events. claimed had gone Sharp's 9 p.m. invited smoke some crack cocaine, offered supply return favors. She agreed, after smoking refused perform leave house, allegedly grabbed triggering brief fight floor. moved room, where, according Harvey, removed clothes. testified, however, never engaged intercourse left shortly thereafter. 5 On cross-examination, prosecutor Before doing so, stipulated "was subject proper Miranda," 32, could been But argued our decision (1971). Defense object, 34; 5a, permitted impeached certain statements, including claim thrown floor, showing omitted information police. 36-45.2 judge believed victim's found guilty charged. 6 reversed conviction. noted rules Miranda 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), It held, "in counsel. See e.g., US 625 [106 (1986) ]." 6a-7a. Because "involved credibility contest between victim," concluded harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Id., 7a. Supreme denied appeal, three justices dissenting, we granted certiorari. 489 1010, 109 1117, 103 180 (1989). now reverse. 7 To understand case, necessary review briefly Court's jurisprudence surrounding Amendment. text provides pertinent part "[i]n all prosecutions, accused shall enjoy . Assistance Counsel defence." essence right, recognized Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), opportunity consult attorney investigate prepare trial. 58, 71, S.Ct., 60, 65. recently, line beginning Massiah United States, 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246 (1964), extending through Maine Moulton, 474 159, 88 481 (1985), has formal proceedings begin, renders chief "deliberately elicited" express States Henry, 447 264, 100 2183, 65 115 (1980); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 97 1232, 51 424 (1977). For fruits postindictment admissible must prove relinquishment 292, n. 4, 2394-2395, 261 (1988); Brewer, supra, U.S., 404, 1242. recently when waives receiving warnings equivalent those prescribed will generally suffice establish purposes supra. 8 created bright-line deciding "asserted" subsequently waived right. Transposing reasoning 378 (1981), context, see Solem Stumes, 465 638, 644, 104 1338, 1342, 79 579 (1984), decided requests assistance initiated 636, 1411. Thus, help truly presumption considered case-by-case inquiry called Williams. dispute issue. further rule, colloquy "cannot viewed interrogation." Tr. Oral Arg. 52. question, then, can 10 Amendment, its roots lie decisions Ari- zona, succeeding cases. Miranda, course, required interrogators advise suspects their Fourteenth Amendments set forth now-familiar suggested instructions purpose. recognizing exclusion reliable imposed these standards" Tucker, 417 433, 446, 94 2357, 2364-65, 41 182 (1974), safeguard self-incrimination. Arizona added layer protection holding "when invoked interrogation, valid cannot responded interrogation advised rights." 484, 1885. thus designed prevent badgering waiving previously asserted Oregon Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1044, 2830, 2834, 405 (1983) (plurality opinion). 11 simply superimposed analysis onto Reasoning "the requires least much interrogation," 632, 1408-09, protections apply outside This like Edwards, supposition assert unlikely waive interrogations. already although they defendant. (1971); Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 43 570 (1975). build acquired contravention guarantees corresponding judicially protections. so matter. If exercises testify behalf, assumes reciprocal "obligation truthfully accurately," Harris, 225, 645, consistently rejected arguments allow " 'turn illegal method Government's possession advantage, provide himself shield contradiction untruths.' 224, 645 (quoting Walder 347 62, 65, 74 354, 356, 98 503 (1954)). 722, 1220-21; Havens, 446 620, 626, 1912, 1916, 64 559 (1980). 13 where ensure rather "right counsel." mandated probative derived statements. Jersey Portash, 440 450, 459, 99 1292, 1297, 59 501 (1979) (compelled incriminating purposes); Mincey 437 385, 398, 2408, 57 290 (1978) (same). prevented relevant defendant, particularly alleged "not Constitution," 444, 2364 (Miranda rules), instead measures protected. cases, "search truth case" outweighs "speculative possibility" might deter future compelled directly Constitution place. 722-723, 627, 1916-17 (reaffirming Hass ). 15 years ago, new come attention lead us think now. 14 argues exclusionary transgressions Miranda. distinction, suggests, itself. nothing whose attached virtue indictment execute course (1988). sure, obtains here, issue changes. change due protective apparent inconsistency request proceed assistance. 290, 3, 2393, 3; cf. Mosley, 423 96, 110, 96 321, 329, 46 (1975) (WHITE, concurring result). other explicitly declined 405-406, 1242-1243 ("The hold, nor we, circumstances Williams not, notice Amendments. not") (emphasis original); Estelle Smith, 454, 471-472, 16, 1866, 1877, 359 (1981) ("We precluded [to coun sel]. No shown, alleged, here"). rely "medium" attaches upon initiation charges, 176, 487, respondent's contention speaking foreclosed Patterson. adopted sometimes regret does disable exercising free will. inherently incapable relinquishing "to imprison man privileges call Constitution." Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 280, 63 236, 242, 87 268 (1942). decline do. Both neither provided [the rule] perverted license perjury way defense, risk confrontation utterances." 226, 646. 17 amici assert, alternatively, circumstances, purposes. They contend invalid. us, possible voluntary. state courts developed issue, rest determination. point court. concerning prosecutor's concession consistent Appeals' finding is, all, analogue decisions. independent conceded putting aside concession, 31-32. short, litigated 18 object occasion offer standards. remand, hearing State's burden show 1242, particular involuntary, satisfied. Those facts consider admissibility 19 judgment reversed, remanded opinion. 20 ordered. whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 21 I it, initiate private interview indicted obtain answer plain: "The accused, 'medium' State." (1985). applies seeking rebuttal evidence, about strategy, material impeachment. 22 couching conclusion language rules," seemingly answers affirmative. reasons follows: protects values; prohibit introduction impeachment; therefore, interpreted strictures syllogism flawed beginning. Only Terms interest preserving integrity accused's choice communicate 291, 2394, acknowledge impermissible encounter just 23 explain error analysis, appropriate start difference values each serves. self-incrimination.1 being 'the deluded instrument conviction.' Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 581, 81 1860, 1867, 1037 (1961) (opinion Frankfurter, J.) W. Hawkins, Pleas Crown 595 (8th ed. 1824)). Our progeny primarily compulsion inherent surroundings." 458, 1619, (1966). contact unrepresented invocation arraignment, creates irrebuttable (1981); 313 result); ante, 350. dispelled suspect's remaining objection presence See, (1983). 24 counsel2 more pervasive affects ability have.3 indisputable assures 'Assistance' [is] both intricacies law advocacy public prosecutor." Ash, 413 300, 309, 93 2568, 2573, 37 619 (1973); Perry Leeke, 488 272, 279, 594, 599, 102 624 (1989); Cronic, 466 648, 659, 25, 2039, 2047, 80 657 (1984). equally presenting rebutting impeaching evidence. congruent representation elementary premise system justice 'that partisan sides best promote ultimate objective innocent go free.' 655, 2045 Herring 422 853, 862, 2550, 2555, 45 593 (1975)); Penson Ohio, 75, 84, 346, 352, 300 25 limited participation entitled aid consultation, thoroughgoing investigation preparation [are] vitally important," 57, 59-60, appeal. Penson, 85, 352; Anders California, 386 738, 1396, 493 (1967); Douglas 372 353, 83 814, 811 (1963). Just Assistance" necessarily encompasses effective 654-655, 2043-2045; Avery 308 60 322, (1940), too "for defence" "criminal prosecutio[n]" includes government's role shifted accusation "defendant finds faced prosecutorial forces organized society." Kirby 406 682, 689, 92 1882, 32 411 (1972) Stewart, J.); Moran Burbine, 412, 430, 1135, 1145-46, 410 (1986).4 Any lesser attempt supplant guaranteed Bill Rights" "secret precincts." Spano 360 315, 326, 1202, 1209, 1265 (1959) (Douglas, concurring).5 26 correctly explains concerns protections" situation Ante, However, whole firmly rooted State" whenever attempts deliberately elicit 487; (1977); (1964). applied initial well questions asking information. 1409.6 direct communication initiating State. initiates "presumed invalid," 349; "is invalid." 1411 added). Preventing contacting states, 'imprison privileges,' 353 (1942)); recognizes gives respect As WHITE explained "an [can make] election face officers questioning alone," essence" earlier "[p]reserving 2394. Indeed, expressly noted, explaining why present, "[o]nce lawyer, distinct aimed sanctity attorney-client relationship takes effect." 3. 27 commencement moreover, produce interests society extend efforts formulate strategy. Weatherford Bursey, 429 545, 552, 554, 837, 843, 30 Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 54, 394, 399-400, 214 (1982) (MARSHALL, dissenting). Under 469-471, 1876-1877, example, psychiatric introduced sentencing phase capital when, standards, admissible. Texas, 492 680, 681, 3146, 3147-3148, 551 Whether examination, submitting examination. 471, 1877; Satterwhite 486 249, 254, 1792, 1796, 284 context. Buchanan Kentucky, 483 402, 107 2906, 336 (1987), Courtunan imously agreed applicable guilt stage noncapital examination informed "about scope nature proceeding." 424, 2919; id., 425, 21, 2919, 21; 433-434, 2923-2924 implemented, short-circuit confronting behind counsel's back. equivocation products II Instead acknowledging describe plain elides recharacterizing involving "prophylactic" rule. purpose recharacterization enable draw analogy (1954), (1971), (1975), (1980), deterring Fourth adequately served excluding illegally ignores excluded 29 seized personal remedy wrong fully accomplished obtained. Stone Powell, 428 465, 486, 3037, 3048-49, 49 1067 (1976); Calandra, 414 338, 348, 613, 38 561 (1974). Thus product unreasonable search seizure nonetheless Since causes harm, reasoned objectionable long general efficacy thereby impaired. 627-628, 1916-1917. similar approach characterized establishes "sweeps broadly itself." Elstad, 470 298, 306, 105 1285, 1291-92, 222 (1985); York Quarles, 467 649, 654, 2626, 2630-31, 550 (1984); 2363-64, Unwarned improperly compliance § dictates. unconstitutionally coerced (1979); 2416, (1978), eviscerate deterrent effect (1975); 31 same follows preceded incident itself.7 "[T]he exists, needed, order protect fundamental fair trial." Strickland Washington, 668, 684, 2052, 2063, 674 implicated, matter, challenged 658, 2046; 558, 845; Nix 431, 456, 2501, 2515-16, (1984) (STEVENS, judgment). collection gravamen claim. reversal conviction harmless, alter fact admission itself error. Massiah, "entirely proper," "denied basic Amendment] words, federal agents elicited 206-207, 1203. 178-180, 488-489. here. contents drawn deterred conducting excludes 351-352. Aside assurance scant comfort respondent, perfectly balance unlawful misconduct Walder, occurred formally charged, unsolved still investigated expected indictment. Knowledge improper destroy powerful incentive follow dictates great care. 33 Once offense, longer merely task determining committed crime; rather, preparing convict committed. shifts accusation." 1146. sufficient probable cause, 2402 dissenting), ethical convict.8 practice, often virtually complete.9 discovery.10 cost greatly reduced. everything gain lose repeatedly visiting many comments pending detract obtaining them value evidence.11 III 34 my 301-302, 2399-2400, expressed concern condonation unethical forms preparation.12 Iun successfully interviews conducted manifestly unfair practice flatly prohibited begin attaches. properly implemented validly administered. holding, resolved "asking what serve stage." 2397-98. identified "spectrum" minimal one extreme maximum other. 35 "At extreme, enormous importance plays most rigorous restrictions conveyed procedures observed, permitting Faretta 806, 835-836 [95 2525, 2541-2542, 562] Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 723-724 [68 316, 323-324, 309] (1948). others fall poles, defined pragmatic assessment usefulness proceeding, dangers proceeding Ibid. 36 say spectrum place standards outset, seems always permissible,13 end, changes asserts "a 354.14 over tried few days. respects comparable pretrial deposition. evident. deposition, reviewed intended counseled omit significant details, presumably omission here.15 Interrogation advanced impair client interfere Regardless prepared accept deposition "voluntary"—as measured undisclosed standard—it surely denigrates condone shabby practice. IV Apparently means identifying disfavors, uses term rule." 345, 349, 350, 351, 353. important remember, prophylactic. Speed limits example; accidents. another; trials. An ignored, avoided, manipulated tragedy today's denigration stake; undermines principle entrusted power government duty obey ordinary citizen. 39 respectfully dissent. anything said court, decide exercise statement. 4a. woman house thought man's name "Michael." name. 36-37. "Michael" brought cocaine home, mentioned provided. 39. "No person witness himself. ." Const., Amdt. 5. "In 6. "An component system. Lawyers 'are necessities, luxuries.' Their essential secured. Without 'of little avail,' repeatedly. 'Of has, far have.' 653-654, 2043-2044, (footnotes omitted). preliminary plea entered White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193 (1963), lineup, "assure meaningful trial," Wade, 388 218, 1926, 1937, 1149 (1967), accused. 401, 1240-41, 415 concurring). Coleman 399 9, 90 1999, 387 (1970); Hamilton 368 52, 82 157, 114 (1961). surreptitious application constitutes simple recognition modern enforcement prosecution, prosecution" refers begins filed. 1934: "When Rights adopted, today. witnesses marshalled, largely contrast, machinery involves critical confrontations results settle fate reduce mere formality. realities construed 'critical' stages proceedings." (Footnote omitted.) 310-311, 2574, (1973). foreshadowed grounding stated 178, 14, 488, soon agent Moulton conversation him" present. Professor Schulhofer commented: 'exclusionary rule' device; actual behavior whatsoever. Rather, permits suspect, 'as trial.' failure exclude collateral violation. denies right." Confessions Mich.L.Rev. 865, 889 (footnote Loewy, Police-Obtained Evidence Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Used Evidence, 907, 931 (1989) justification disallowing rule,' sixth amendment's governing trials"); Wasserstrom & Mertens, Exclusionary Rule Scaffold: Was Fair Trial?, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 175 ABA Standards Criminal 3-3.9(a) (2d 1980) ("It unprofessional institute, cause instituted, permit continued pendency known supported cause. support conviction"). Most prosecutions compiled offense 11-43 ("Normally, completed filing accusatory instrument"); L. Weinreb, Denial 47 Kaplan, Prosecutorial Discretion—A Comment, Nw.U.L.Rev. 174, (1965). work preparation, pure simple. civil unfair. regard departure 'procedural regularity' violate clause Amendment." Springer, 460 F.2d 1344, 1355 (CA7) (dissenting opinion) omitted), cert. denied, 409 873, 205, 125 (1972). ignore inevitably discriminate defendants indigent post bond. formed exposed daily stake occasional constant control prosecutor, affected ruling. pause adopting obviously disparate impact defendants. prosecutors investigators. litigation adversary's either opposing permission back one's adversary serious breach professional ethics and, notions fairness demanding enforced. "After jury impaneled progress, By 'private interview' mean, agents, court." (Footnotes matter ethics, here plainly improper. Rules Professional Conduct, ABA's Code Responsibility, giving Mich. 4.2 Model Responsibility DR 7-104(A)(1) restraint prosecutor. Mich.Rules 5.3 11-12. House Delegates American Bar Association stressed requirements prosecutors. Report 301 (approved Feb. 12-13, 1990). so." 345-346. "[W]e acknowledges, 347, basis rested mention details victim smoked time. 5-6. name, 36, indicated "thought" 37. "had caine, too, his. So exchanging." Finally, pushed away neglected wrested 44.

Category: 0