Document: 512 U.S. 452114 S.Ct. 2350129 L.Ed.2d 362 Robert L. DAVIS, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES No. 92-1949. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 29, 1994. Decided June 24, Syllabus * Petitioner, a member Navy, initially waived his rights to remain silent and counsel when he was interviewed by Naval Investigative Service agents in connection with murder sailor. About an hour half into interview, said, "Maybe I should talk lawyer." However, inquired if asking for lawyer, replied that not. They took short break, reminded rights, interview continued another hour, until asked have lawyer present before saying anything more. A military judge denied motion suppress statements made at holding mention during interrogation not request counsel. He convicted murder, and, ultimately, Military Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. After knowing voluntary waiver under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, law enforcement officers may continue questioning unless suspect clearly requests attorney. is entitled assistance custodial even though Constitution does provide such assistance. Id., 469-473, S.Ct., 1625-1627. If invokes right any time, police must immediately cease him attorney present. Edwards 451 477, 484-485, 101 1880, 1884-1885, 68 378. The rule serves prophylactic purpose preventing from badgering waiving previously asserted its applicability requires courts determine whether accused actually invoked This objective inquiry, requiring some statement can reasonably be construed expression desire attorney's reference ambiguous or equivocal reasonable officer light circumstances would understood only might invoking counsel, require stop suspect. Extending create requirement transform safeguards wholly irrational obstacles legitimate investigative activity needlessly absence attorney, wish one provides bright line applied real world investigation without unduly hampering gathering information. clarity ease application lost were required based on since they forced make difficult judgment calls about what wants, threat suppression guess wrong. While it will often good practice clarify making really wants are ask clarifying questions. Pp. ____. 2. There no reason disturb conclusion below petitioner's remark — lawyer" P. 36 M.J. 337 (CMA 1993), O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. SOUTER, judgment, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, GINSBURG, David S. Jonas, petitioner. Richard H. Seamon, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 In 378 (1981), we held who has interrogation. this case decide how respond makes insufficiently clear invoke prohibition further questioning. 2 Pool brought trouble River City, but Charleston Base. spent evening October 2, 1988, shooting pool club base. Another sailor, Keith Shackleford, game $30 wager petitioner, Shackleford refused pay. closed, beaten death cue loading dock behind commissary. body found early next morning. 3 (NIS) gradually focused determined petitioner evening, absent authorization duty station also learned privately owned cues could removed premises, two had bloodstain it. told various people either admitted committing crime recounted details indicated involvement killing. 4 On November 4, NIS office. As law, advised killing, statement, used against trial court-martial, speak See Art. 31, Uniform Code (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 831; Mil.Rule Evid. 305; Manual Courts-Martial A22-13 (1984). Petitioner both orally writing. 5 App. 135. According uncontradicted testimony interviewing agents, then proceeded as follows: 6 "[We m]ade very we're here violate kind him, weren't going pursue matter clarified just comment [']No, I'm lawyer,' on, 'No, don't want lawyer.' " 136. 7 "I think say else." 137. At point, ceased. 8 general moved interview. motion, "the [petitioner] course [was] form . properly indicating counsel." 164. specification unpremeditated violation 118, UCMJ, 918. sentenced confinement life, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture all pay allowances, reduction rank lowest grade. convening authority approved findings sentence. Navy-Marine Corps Review Pet. Cert. 12a-15a. 9 granted discretionary review (1993). court recognized state federal developed three different approaches suspect's counsel: "Some jurisdictions however ambiguous, sufficient cease. Others attempted define threshold standard comments falling do Some offense whenever mentions allow interrogators narrow questions designed earlier [suspect's] desires respecting 341 (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying third approach, wishes respect continuing offense. 341-342. 11 Although twice noted varying lower adopted references interrogation, see Connecticut Barrett, 479 523, 529-530, n. 3, 107 828, 832, 93 920 (1987); Smith Illinois, 469 91, 96, 105 490, 493, 83 488 (1984) (per curiam ), addressed issue merits. We certiorari, 510 ----, 114 379, 126 329 (1993), so. II 12 Sixth Amendment attaches initiation adversary criminal proceedings, Gouveia, 467 180, 188, 104 2292, 2297, 81 146 (1984), proceedings initiated constitutional Nevertheless, 1625-1627, 694 (1966), subject consult questioning, explain begins. established "series recommended 'procedural safeguards' [that] themselves protected instead measures insure compulsory self-incrimination protected." Michigan Tucker, 417 433, 443-444, 94 2357, 2363-2364, 41 182 (1974); Const., Amdt. ("No person shall compelled witness himself").* 13 sufficiently important suspects investigations, held, "requir[es] special protection intelligent standard." U.S., 483, 1884. Oregon Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1046-1047, 103 2830, 2835-2836, 77 405 (1983) (plurality opinion); id., 1051, 2838 (Powell, judgment). effectively waives after receiving warnings, free question him. North Carolina Butler, 441 369, 372-376, 99 1755, 1756-1759, 60 286 (1979). But time been available himself reinitiates conversation. supra, 1884-1885. "second layer prophylaxis counsel," McNeil Wisconsin, 501 171, 176, 111 2204, 2208, 115 158 (1991), "designed prevent defendant rights," Harvey, 494 344, 350, 110 1176, 1180, 108 293 (1990). To end, cannot questioned regarding Minnick Mississippi, 498 146, 486, 112 489 (1990); Arizona Roberson, 486 675, 2093, 100 704 (1988). "It remains clear, however, like other aspects itself Fifth Amendment's coerced confessions, justified purpose." 528, 832. 14 'rigid' rule" "determine 95, 492 (emphasis added), quoting Fare Michael C., 442 707, 719, 2560, 2569, 61 197 avoid difficulties proof guidance conducting interrogations, inquiry. 529, Invocation "requires, minimum, attorney." 178, 2209. our precedents cessation ibid. ("the likelihood test Edwards"); 485, 1885 (impermissible authorities "to reinterrogate custody counsel") added). 15 Rather, unambiguously observed, "a assertion not." 97-98, (brackets internal need "speak discrimination Oxford don," post, ____ (SOUTER, judgment), articulate understand fails meet requisite level clarity, Moran Burbine, 475 412, 106 1135, 1147, 89 410 (1986) [i]f individual states attorney") (citations decline invitation extend upon 688, 2101-2102 (KENNEDY, dissenting) rule, command; obligation justify expansion"). rationale underlying know immediate "would activity," Mosley, 423 102, 96 321, 326, 46 313 (1975), because did Nothing provision consents answer lawyer. itself, expressly rejected suggestion "that each 'station house lawyer' times advise prisoners," 474, 1628, "indecisive always 1633. 17 recognize disadvantage fear, intimidation, lack linguistic skills, variety reasons their although primary afforded warnings themselves. "[F]ull comprehension [is] dispel whatever coercion inherent process." 427, 1144. knowingly voluntarily having explained willingness deal unassisted. additional subsequently affirmatively 18 considering consider side equation: effective enforcement. ensure compliance requirements through exclusionary asks lost. Police fact hasn't said so, therefore hold that, 19 Of course, That procedure followed case. Clarifying help protect ensuring gets one, minimize chance confession being suppressed due subsequent judicial second-guessing meaning adopt unambiguous unequivocal 20 recapitulate: unwilling Unless continue. 21 conclusion. entirely proper them wanted Because there ground statements, 22 Affirmed. 23 concurring. 24 Section 3501 Title statute governing admissibility confessions prosecutions." Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 1599, 1600, 128 319 (1994). declares admissible evidence given," voluntariness basis "all surrounding giving confession, including [the] knew [;] prior counsel; questioned. ." §§ 3501(a), (b) (emphases It continues (lest import doubtful): "The presence above-mentioned factors conclusive confession." 3501(b). Legal analysis these provisions equivalent legal hearsay consulting Rules Evidence; unreal exercise. Yet observes, ante, ____, n., precisely undertaken raise 3501(a) "not issue" here, Brief 18, 13.* 25 first declined us nor failure called attention. Tr. Oral Arg. Green, O.T. 1992, 91-1521, pp. 18-21. fact, limited exceptions studiously avoided every Administration, courts, enactment more than years ago. Office Policy, Dept. Justice, Report Attorney General Law Pre-Trial Interrogation 72-73 (discussing "[t]he abortive implementation 3501" passage 1968). 26 agree proper, given Government's render taking account 3501. refusal arguments raised sound prudential practice, rather statutory mandate, prudence dictates contrary. Nat. Bank Ore. Independent Ins. Agents America, Inc., 508 ---- - 113 2173, 2177-2179, 124 402 (1993) (proper allegedly controlling repealed, despite parties' failure, invitation, assert point). far am concerned, arrived comes within terms presented us. 27 For most century, vel non touchstone confessions. 506-507, 1644-1645, (1966) (Harlan, dissenting). seems prosecutions today. "seems" prejudge law. open argument mean appears say; inapplicable reason; unconstitutional. longer ignore commands simply Executive declines insist observe them. 28 power (whether right) nullify mere prosecute exercise so-called prosecutorial discretion. And declining introduce terms. once prosecution commenced introduced, assuredly neither objections valid directed reflecting people's assessment balance struck between concern persons interrogated needs shirk systematically disregard command Department remind 29 States' repeated 3501, combined courts' traditional (albeit merely prudential) raised, caused judiciary confront host "Miranda issues irrelevant See, e.g., addition case, 507 1835, 123 260 (dism'g cert. moot); Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (CA8 1990); Vazquez, 857 (CA1 1988); Scalf, 725 1272 (CA10 1984). Worse still, produced era intense national problem run-away acquittal nonprosecution many dangerous felons, enabling depredations citizens. excuse this. Perhaps (though why) believing allowing defeated grounds invocation consistent Executive's "take Care Laws faithfully executed," II, 3. point. point Third Branch's according 30 whom GINSBURG join, judgment. 31 midst naval investigators, "maybe investigators promptly stopped Davis killing Shackleton undertook meant (1966). accepted below, answered investigators' saying, "I'm lawyer," "No, Only resume (stopping else"). 32 majority forbid pose (like those Davis) aimed solely right. Accordingly concur affirming Davis's conviction, resting partly ascertained cannot, join my colleagues' so inclined, liberty entirely, accordance discover express 33 Our own precedent, judgments already us,1 advocacy considerable officials2 All argue Court's approach today, draws sharp "clearly" something may, not, counsel's presence, former assured present, Miranda, 1627, (1981); (1990), latter left fend concerns fairness practicality long anchored response: officials "reasonably choice clear. 34 A. 35 address today one,3 coherence nearly decades addressing relationship Throughout period, precepts commanded broad assent: exist assure individual's choose speech silence unfettered throughout process," 831, (1987) (quoting 469, 1625, supplying emphasis), justification rules, intended operate world, "must practical realities." 2102, (1988) barring government fulfills ambitions. assures "scrupulously honored," 479, 1630; cf. 110, 324, (1975) (White, result), faces real-world why misunderstandings arise interrogator limitations capacity apply fine distinctions intricate rules. B Tested same principles, adopts fare well. First, acknowledges, (in Miranda's words) "thrust unfamiliar atmosphere run menacing procedures," 457, 1618, seem odd group single out demand heightened care. substantial percentage confident English language, see, De la Jara, 973 746, 750 (CA9 1992); "woefully ignorant," 468, 1624; Carolina, 737, 742, 1761, 1764, 895 (1966); intimidated process overwhelmed uncertainty predicament ability assertively abandon them.4 Indeed, awareness realities has, past, dissuaded placing burden individuals custody, led "give[n] broad, narrow, interpretation," Jackson, 625, 633, 1404, 1409, 631 (1986); "indulge presumption," Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) omitted), 2838, concurring) ("We unanimous agreeing [Miranda] prime example standard") brackets omitted); Minnick, 160, (SCALIA, ("[W]e adhered principle nothing less Zerbst standard" appropriate waivers). 37 Nor waivers expressed deflected away drawing distinction initial decisions reinvoke them, theory demonstrate rests government, fair shoulder showing assertion. discredited legitimacy distinction. described object warning continuous opportunity [the silence]," 444, 1612; 1160 (STEVENS, dissenting); accord, 423, 1, 1141-1142, "[C]ontinuous opportunity" suggests unvarying governed common effectiveness. confirmed follows, "there questioning" "indicates manner stage attorney," 444-445, 1612. "[A]t stage" obviously includes commencement manner" plainly tension indication "with vengeance," 505, 1644 "continuous" waiver. 38 defends tolerable certainty poorly disregarded suffice alleviate Ante, But, once-stated warning, conduct suffice" "assure 1625. defense reflect reading relies supra: 39 "Beyond inform, decision outlined warnings. 'If indicates manner, silent, [if he] cease.' 420, 1140 473-474, 1627). 40 subject's undermined prevented unsummoned contact contains affords ready tolerance frustrating subjectively (if ambiguously expressed) 1141 (contrasting Escobedo 478, 481, 84 1758, 1760, 977 (1964), where "police incorrectly 'didn't him' "); 1625 (purpose "show prepared privilege it"). easy, amidst discussion layers protection, lose sight risk majority's close core provides. experience timid verbally inept (whose existence acknowledges) closely follow purported right, ineffective, lest tempted "badge[r]" others (1990)). whose sense dilemma interrogators' denial When understands (expressed) ignored (and hypothesis, listener "reasonably," necessarily, take request), contravention "rights" read interrogator, well objection futile (true not) way end interrogation.5 42 enough 'statement not.' 494) (omitting marks). Smith, possibility 98, 494; 101, 495 (REHNQUIST, dissenting), suggested particular considered isolation. 494.6 dictate hear presume forge ahead; contrary, clarification intuitively sensible course. 43 justifications offered "requisite clarity" costs, society's strong interest "effective enforcement," maintain "ease application," jurisprudence. With margin difference advocated defined class cases suspect, asked, plain (at cease). extract price society, borne. Cf. Americans Effective Enforcement, et al. Amici Curiae (the "preserves interests public welfare"); Escobedo, 1764 system worth preserving fear permitted become aware of, exercise, [his constitutional] rights"). 44 application, while majority's, involve "difficult calls,"7 argued relieve responsibility guessing "whether so," "judgment call" party competent resolve ambiguity, assumed it: 45 convinced taken wrong path, persuaded contention, urges claim support notably language deny endorse abused "clarifying" shade subtly illicitly Thompson Wainwright, 601 768, 771-772 (CA5 1979); State Walkowiak, 515 N.W.2d 863 (Wis.1994) (Abrahamson, (suggesting means focus enquiry). proposal harmony major themes virtues demerits reverse images mark rule. wrong, example, indicates), bias favor disserved stopping (but otherwise), 109, 329, result) paternalistic protecting case"). costs society losing would, moreover, especially hard bear choice, chosen One sign resort argues shows drastic safeguarding suspects' up job, generally Leon, 468 897, 927-928, 3405, 3423, 677 (BLACKMUN, (exclusionary exception "tested enforcement, attend results"). 47 best respected expressing summoned cease), confined verifying expect today's ruling sensibly (without don) rightly "good practice" (compelled now Circuit law), believe otherwise. syllabus constitutes part Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 337, 282, 287, 50 499. never occasion self incrimination, attendant applies force military, here. President, exercising prescribe procedures 36(a), 836(a), decreed obtained Self-Incrimination Clause trials court-martial. Mil.Rules 304(a) (c)(3). construing interrogations control McLaren, 112, (1993); Applewhite, 196, 198 (1987), parties contest proceed assumption courts-martial prosecutions. note Government sought rely prosecutions," (1994) amici Washington Foundation 7-14. amicus brief, Teague Lane, 288, 300, 109 1060, 1069, 334 (1989) opinion), reluctant impression involving interpretation position. 44-47. unusually self-denying "in event appear applicable court-martial cases" (1) 'criminal prosecutions' "therefore prosecution[s]' purposes 3501(a)," (2) Article 305 Evidence. me questionable: statutes necessarily parallel Constitution. Moreover, accepting premise directly, indirectly, Rule 101(b)(1) Evidence, rules district courts." second point: cited doubt it) independent excluded, possibly excluding event, bases inapplicable, failed addresses. Porter, 776 370 1985) (en banc); Gotay, 844 971, 975 (CA2 1979) Fouche, 833 1284, 1287 1987); March, 999 456, 461-462 1993); Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 1467, 1472 (CA11 Howard Pung, 862 1348 1988). weight state-court similarly lopsided, People Benjamin, 732 P.2d 1167, 1171 (Colo.1987); Crawford State, 580 A.2d 571, 576-577 (Del.1990); Martinez 564 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.1990); Robinson, 427 217, 223 (Minn.1988). International Association Chiefs Police, Inc. National District Attorneys Association, Sheriffs' "is resolution problem. fully accommodates subject, preserv[ing] (approach "fulfill fundamental Miranda") (despite persistence divergent courts) operative Mueller Virginia, dissenting certiorari), reaches foreshadowed "likelihood present" dispositive. degree activate (let alone endorsing embraced today), evident page cited, careful Ibid. familiar "would" suggest representation interest. disposed italicizing words 1885, (1981) effect "clearly assert[s]" Even putting aside highest "equivocal," Edwards, 122 Ariz. 206, 211, 594 72, 76 (1979); 480, 6, 1882, 6), decided consequences "clear" explicit sufficient, 475, settled necessary. 373, 1757, (1979) (holding not). Were otherwise, identify unresolved, supra; 95-96, 492-493, ). Nor, finally, plausible presage suggesting 'indecisive.' 1633). quoted, holding, lengthy direct letter Solicitor General, purporting summarize then-current FBI (which observed "consistent," 484, 1633, announced). explains policy, "indecisive" "question[ed] waive closer adopts. Social science confirms suggest, feel powerless likely nonstandard ambiguity equivocation meant. W. O'Barr, Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power Strategy Courtroom 61-71 (1982). Suspects candidates effects. "third degree" abated basic forms psychological pressure changed less. Compare, 449, 1615 (" '[T]he principal factor contributing successful privacy ' ") F. Inbau & J. Reid, Criminal Interrogations Confessions (1962)), Inbau, Buckley, (3d ed. 1986) ("The privacy"). Harper, Ill.App.3d 298, 49 Ill.Dec. 874, 876, 418 N.E.2d 894, 896 (defendant retrieve business card wallet 'wouldn't necessary' "availed himself" counsel); Cooper Dupnik, 1220, 1225 1992) banc) (describing elaborate Task Force plan induce hopelessness thereby elicit admission, keep off stand, Haas, 420 714, 95 1215, 570 (statements impeachment purposes)). dissent adverts sentence "bona fide still "strictly" prescribed. 102 Ill.2d 365, 375, 80 784, 789, 466 236, 241 (opinion Simon, J.). abstract, "clear statement" stations question, "how clear?" readily answered. says, "uh, yeah, I'd that" asserted" right? Compare 97, ) (statement 'neither indecisive ambiguous' (citation omitted)), 495-496 (questioning clarity); 1041-1042, 2832-2833, opinion) ("I goes much further"); 1882 'I deal' supra. finally else," ceased questioning; Kendricks, 121 442, 446, 41, 43, 459 1137, 1139 (agents Santiago, 133 App.Div.2d 429, 430-431, 519 N.Y.S.2d 413, 414-415 'Will you supply [a lawyer] moment?' invocation"). (noting rarely "crystal-clear. [D]ifferences hesitancy turn inflection spoken, [a] isolated matter, arbiters "clarity" themselves, tend preferred source determining precise used. inculpatory result unrecorded, incommunicado "swearing matches" defendants hearings.

Category: 0