Document: 479 U.S. 523 107 S.Ct. 828 93 L.Ed.2d 920 CONNECTICUT, Petitionerv.William BARRETT. No. 85-899. Argued Dec. 9, 1986. Decided Jan. 27, 1987. Syllabus Respondent, while in custody on suspicion of sexual assault, was three times advised by the police his Miranda rights. On each occasion, after signing and dating an acknowledgment that he had been given those rights, respondent indicated to would not make a written statement, but willing talk about incident led arrest. second third such occasions, added statement outside presence counsel, then orally admitted involvement assault. One officers reduced writing recollection respondent's last confession introduced into evidence at trial. The trial court refused suppress confession, finding fully understood warnings voluntarily waived right counsel. Respondent's conviction inter alia, reversed Connecticut Supreme Court which held expressed desire for counsel before making constituted invocation all purposes, initiating further discussion with police, therefore incriminating improperly under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378. Held: Constitution did require suppression statement. Pp. 527-530. (a) statements made clear willingness and, there being no "threatened, tricked, or cajoled" speaking properly found decision do so voluntary waiver Although rules were designed protect defendants from compelled government statements, they also give choose between speech silence. 527-529. (b) limited its terms prohibit police. Requests must be broad, all-inclusive effect only when defendant's words, as ordinary people understand them, are ambiguous. Here, clearly unequivocally speak 529-530. (c) distinction drawn oral indicate understanding incomplete render effective purposes. To hold contravene testimony, court's finding, warnings, including warning anything said could used against him. A ignorance full consequences decisions does vitiate their voluntariness. P. 530. 197 Conn. 50, 495 A.2d 1044 (1985) remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed concurring judgment, post, STEVENS, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, 536. Julia DiCocco Dewey, New Haven, Conn., petitioner. Charles A. Rothfeld, U.S., amicus curiae, support petitioner, special leave Court. Robert L. Genuario, Fairfield, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 Respondent William Barrett convicted jury unlawful restraint, possession controlled substance. convictions. It should have suppressed our 378 (1981), because Barrett, though stating (1985). We granted certiorari consider federal constitutional issues presented this holding. 476 1114, 106 1967, 90 652 (1986). reverse. 2 In early morning October 24, 1980, transported Connecticut, Wallingford, where suspect assault occurred previous evening. Upon arrival Wallingford station, Officer Peter Cameron signed dated received required 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). stated "he any problem talking incident." App. 12A. 3 Approximately 30 minutes later, questioned John Genovese. Before questioning, again rights card acknowledging read told unless attorney present "no problem" incident. Id., 21A. gave admitting 4 After discovering tape recorder preserve malfunctioned, conducted interview. For time, once [the incident] verbally want put until came." 44A. He repeated regarding evening's events. When discovered failed record 5 court, hearing, admissible. "offered need explained him understood. So it merely passive acquiescence. . ." 70A. Barrett's without "indicate[d] certainly having obligation statement." Ibid. thus allowed testimony content took stand own defense testified 130A. sentenced prison term 9 18 years. 6 conviction, holding invoked refusing attorney. view, served purposes: 7 "The fact defendant attached request affect outcome inquiry. No particular form words has ever trigger individual's fifth amendment protections; nor requests narrowly construed. refusal assistance dealings Such continues constitutionally despite statements. conclude, therefore, invoke fourteenth amendments." 57, A.2d, 1049 (citations omitted). 8 This invocation, believed, brought case within what called "bright-line rule establishing right." 58, 1049. That requires "(a) initiated discussions knowingly intelligently invoked." Smith Illinois, 469 91, 95, 105 490, 492, 83 488 (1984) (per curiam ). See Edwards, supra, 485, 486, n. S.Ct., 1885 9. Because admitted. think erred United States crime suspect. is waiver. Miranda, 476, 1628. nevertheless matter law1 prohibited interrogation absent initiation Barrett. Nothing decisions, however, rationale authorities ignore tenor sense response these warnings. 10 fundamental purpose Court's "to assure silence remains unfettered throughout process." 469, 1625 (emphasis added). Moran Burbine, 475 412, 426, 1135, 1143, 89 410 (1986) ("Miranda attempted reconcile [competing] concerns giving power exert some control over course interrogation") original); Oregon Elstad, 470 298, 308, 1285, 1293, 84 222 ("Once warned, free exercise volition deciding whether authorities") end, adopted prophylactic insulate Fifth Amendment "compulsion, subtle otherwise," "operates individual overcome choice producing privilege 474, 1627. Smith, 98, 494; Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1044, 103 2830, 2834, 77 405 (1983). that, accused "states wants attorney, cease present." 484, 1884. clear, prohibition questioning—like other aspects Miranda—is itself Amendment's coerced confessions, instead justified reference purpose. York Quarles, 467 649, 654, 104 2626, 2630, 81 550 (1984). By prohibiting we erect auxiliary barrier coercion. 11 But know objective case. undisputed desired Had obtained meeting standards inadmissible.2 accompanied affirmative announcements authorities. officials opportunity provided obtain quite consistent Amendment. gives silence, chose speak. 12 contrary rested view premise, observes prior broad less than all-inclusive. 1041-1042, 2832-2833 ("I goes very much further"); 479, 1882 deal"). denigrate "settled approach questions [that] us rather narrow, interpretation counsel," Michigan Jackson, 625, 633, 1404, 1409, 631 (1986), observe little aid cause. Interpretation intentions, honored police.3 conclude purposes ambiguous disregard meaning 13 reject contention indicates deem suggestion ignores testimony—and Court—that These course, "[i]f you officers, say can will court." 48A. might find illogical4 irrelevant, never "embraced theory vitiates voluntariness." 316, 1297; Colorado Spring, 564, 851, 954 (1987). 14 reasons stated, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 15 ordered. judgment. 17 I concur different set forth contemporaneous (for statement) suggested However, State eliminated apparent ambiguity demonstrated voluntary, knowing, intelligent. i.e., knew lawyer Under circumstances, valid. * (1966), custodial inherently coercive receive detailed she remain silent during questioning. admissible if carries "heavy burden" executed valid self-incrimination 475, so, demonstrate "an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege." Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see 475-479, 1628-1630. determination, courts examine "the facts circumstances surrounding case, background, experience, conduct accused." 1023. 19 language stake "specifically made." 470, 1625. While retreated position North Carolina Butler, 441 369, 373, 99 1755, 1757, 60 286 (1979), continue believe " 'affirmative waiver' proceeding interrogation. id., 377, 1759 (quoting Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 516, 884, 890, 70 (1962)). 20 affirmatively Unlike willingly indicating explicit Furthermore, officer who administered latter "[c]ompletely": "I asked [Barrett] several my administration if, fact, them; points wanted me clarify, me, no, everything fairly well." Tr. 452. At trial, one issue voluntarily, knowingly, himself 879-880.1 21 represented reach conclusion. police—that allow nothing counsel—created doubt actually not, face, knowing intelligent silence.2 As general matter, odd juxtaposition (a unwillingness preserved) militates 378, ("[T]here reason defendant's] followed sign form, intended signify rights").3 revealed present, him; 22 sum, carried demonstrating shown capacity them4 expressly saying "had 452; 461-462, 490-491, 674. findings essential conclusion occurred. II 23 argues mention impermissible (1981). settled plain reference, however glancing, representation result cessation 444-445, 1612 (questioning "indicates manner stage process wishes consult speaking"); 24 partial more, invariably rise doubts precise her nature scope Thus, may infer alone specifically invoked. 25 clarify otherwise situation. If intelligent, lose ambiguity.5 become portion waived, when, example, necessarily includes case.6 Here ambiguous: express validity plainly established subsequent testimony. accompaniment rendered permissible authorities' use statements.7 26 reasons, 27 whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 28 disposition raises two troublesome questions. 29 First, why decide discretion grant review case? surely unique. They recurring significance. There conflict among state how narrow question resolved. arguably more protection citizen Federal requires.1 "asks interpreted too broadly 'overprotected' citizen." Long, 463 1032, 1068, 3469, 3490, 1201 (1983) (STEVENS, dissenting). sufficient adding already overcrowded docket, need, one, newly fashioned "intercircuit tribunals" keep abreast work. Second, (1981)? 'before deal.' 1882. 'but don't tape.' complied everyday both conditions; "deal"—indeed, deal—and recording session made. objectionable. requested Why police's compliance literal makes request—as opposed waiver2—any Edwards' adequately events, purport change governing law judges "give counsel." 31 dismiss writ improvidently granted. noted "impliedly 56, 1048 suggest, all-inclusive, present. 6, 1048, 6. then, rests legal factual finding. attempts unsuccessful, occasion taped Since claim represent equivocal address left open 96, 3, 493, suggest illogical, strategic still refuse write out answers questions, transcript prepared judge denied motion following holding: "[T]he concludes heard perfectly Not understood, offered acquiescence agreement go explain understood." states 'a decisions' 'vitiat[e] voluntariness.' Ante, 530 1297, (1985)). accept waive exist. Cf. Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 277, 2041, 2073, 36 854 (1973) (BRENNAN, dissenting) ("The holds today effectively [to secure unreasonable search] even totally ignorant absence consent, invasions privacy prohibited. wholly escapes citizens meaningfully something precious guarantee aware existence"); ibid. (MARSHALL, thought depends upon knowledge reaches curious relinquish right—the searches alternative accede search"). W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 6.9(f), pp. 534-535 (1984 ed.) ("[T]he Butler misperceived written. up misunderstandings reasonable observer. Short this, significantly increase prosecution's burden presumption rights"). here, unlike rights: ascertained 12th-grade education, dispute read. 1759, (1979). order occur, them contemporaneously. ), considered closely rendering first request. determined totality, accused's postrequest responses cast retrospective clarity initial itself." 100, 495. create continuing it. Jardina, 747 F.2d 945, 949 (CA5 1984) (The "without slightest answer others" "clearly wished work cooperative deal future." Appeals combined "did counsel"). "[h]ad [a written] [v. (1981) ], inadmissible." 529. demonstrates immediate preservation attempt succeeded, inadmissible. addition, persuade asserted once, twice, indication changed mind point. 689 ("Sergeant Genovese [questioning] Lieutenant Howard inquired [about reducing writing]"); 521. 484-485, 1884-1885, invokes subject "until available [or her], initiates communication, exchanges, conversations police." respect assertion persistent efforts mind, central Petitioner action unduly expanded protections accorded criminal [C]onstitution involuntarily possible through ignored case." Pet. Cert. 5. ruling embodying thereafter agreed determination ineffective law. 60, 1050

Category: 0