Legal Document

469 U.S. 91 105 S.Ct. 490 83 L.Ed.2d 488 Steven SMITHv.ILLINOIS. No. 84-5332. Dec. 10, 1984. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitioner Smith was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a 9-year prison term. He contends that the police improperly elicited confession from him after he clearly had requested assistance counsel, trial court's refusal suppress therefore violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), Edwards 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378 (1981). Illinois Supreme Court held Smith's responses continued questioning rendered his initial request for counsel "ambiguous," officers were not required terminate their questioning. 102 Ill.2d 365, 373-374, 80 Ill.Dec. 784, 788, 466 N.E.2d 236, 240 (1984). Under Edwards, however, an accused's postrequest further interrogation may be used cast doubt on clarity counsel. Finding no ambiguity in request, we accordingly grant petition reverse. 2 * Shortly arrest, 18-year-old taken room at Logan County Safety Complex by two detectives. session began as follows: 3 "Q. Steve, I want talk with you reference took place McDonald's restaurant morning 19th. Are familiar this? 4 "A. Yeah. My cousin Greg was. 5 Okay. But before do must advise your rights. Okay? You have right remain silent. me unless so. Do understand that? 6 Uh. She told get my lawyer. said guys would railroad me.1 7 gave it you, Steve? 8 9 If whatever say can will against court. 10 11 consult lawyer present when you're being questioned. 12 Uh, yeah. I'd like that. 13 Okay." Ill.2d, 368-369, Ill.Dec., 786, N.E.2d, 238 (emphasis opinion). 14 Instead terminating this point, interrogating proceeded finish reading rights then pressed again answer questions: 15 . unable pay one appointed represent free cost, 17 wish time without present? 18 Yeah no, uh, don't know what's what, really. 19 Well. either [to agree ] if stop any to. 20 All right. I'll then." Id., 369, (bracketed words appear Tr. 230). 21 detectives knew advance about planned robbery, but contended been participant. After considerable probing detectives, confessed "I committed it," returned earlier story only known crime. 369-370, 238. Upon questioning, insisted wanta lawyer." 370, This honored terminated interrogation. 22 moved incriminating statements, Record 45, judge denied motion, 231. A transcript introduced part State's case chief, convicted. 23 In affirming conviction, Appellate Fourth District acknowledged first "appears clear unequivocal." 113 Ill.App.3d 305, 310, 69 339, 342, 447 556, 559 (1983). court concluded, "when [the request] is considered other statements—as should be—it undecided exercising counsel" "never made effective counsel." Ill.App.3d, 309-310, 341-342, 558-559. Rather, "merely indecisive inquiry into 559. 24 affirmed 4-3 vote. majority agreed lower "Smith's total, ambiguous, did effectively invoke 373, 792, 240. Specifically, noted although stated "I'd that" upon learning counsel's presence interrogation, subsequently replied "Yeah what really," "All 372, light these subsequent remarks, reasoned, "Steven assert original). II 25 An accused custody, "having expressed desire deal through subject authorities until has available him," validly waives U.S., 484-485, S.Ct., 1885.2 "rigid" prophylactic rule, Fare Michael C., 442 707, 719, 99 2560, 2569, 61 197 (1979), embodies distinct inquiries. First, courts determine whether actually invoked See, e.g., supra, 1884-1885 (whether "expressed desire" for, or "clearly asserted" to, counsel); 444-445, 1612 "indicate[d] manner stage process wish[ed] attorney speaking"). Second, admit finding (a) initiated discussions police, (b) knowingly intelligently waived invoked. 485, 486, n. 9, 1885, 9. 26 concerns threshold inquiry: instance. On occasion, asserted ambiguous equivocal. As dissenting opinions below noted, developed conflicting standards determining consequences such ambiguities. See 372-373, 240; id., 375-377, 793-794, 241-242 (Simon, J., dissenting).3 We need resolve conflict instant case, because judgment reversed irrespective which standard applied. 27 among addressed relevance alleged ambiguities equivocations (1) precede purported (2) are itself. Neither circumstance pertains here, however. State nor below, example, pointed anything previously might meaning statement presence.4 Nor they inherent nature actual reasonably suggested equivocation. Justice Simon dissent "with possible exception word 'uh' defendant's neither ambiguous: 'Uh, yeah, that.' " 377, 794, 242. And itself 559.5 28 able construe "ambiguous" looking concluding that, "considered total," "statements" added); see also 559.6 line analysis unprecedented untenable. emphasized "[a] assertion [of counsel] not." 375, 789, 241. Where nothing circumstances leading up render all cease. circumstances, statements relevant question Invocation waiver entirely inquiries, blurred merging them together.7 29 importance keeping inquiries manifest. set forth "bright-line rule" cease requests Solem Stumes, 465 638, 646, 104 1338, 1343, 79 579 absence bright-line prohibition, "badger[ing]" "overreaching"—explicit subtle, deliberate unintentional—might otherwise wear down persuade incriminate himself notwithstanding assistance. Oregon Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1044, 103 2830, 2834, 77 405 (1983); 2568. With respect inquiry, valid "cannot established showing accused] responded police-initiated custodial interrogation." 484, 1885. Using adequacy even more intolerable. "No authority, logic, permits interrogator proceed own terms defendant nothing, hope induced something casting retrospective wished speak all." 376, 241 dissenting).8 III 30 Our decision narrow one. decide characterized equivocal result events preceding nuances itself, hold under logical force settled precedent, Such waiver. 31 Accordingly, motion leave forma pauperis granted, writ certiorari reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 32 It so ordered. 33 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE POWELL join, dissenting. 34 seizes petitioner's seven-word response "Uh, that," during colloquy its entirety could five minutes, proclaims thereby speaking police. doing, decides essentially factual contrary three question: court, Court, Illinois. guise applying rule law which, however correct abstract, little application facts, jurisdiction relitigate reaches conclusion demonstrably than reached courts. 35 There dispute (1981), requires cease, asserts here "interrogation" conducted police; simply giving full warnings. very next officer "clear assertion" tell "[i]f that?" Surely give warnings, talismanic quality attributes it. 36 assumes statement, announced affirmatively tone equivocation inquiry. observed, request. fourth right, immediately sought clarification asking pointedly, "Do present?" To query, responded, really." judge, who observe demeanor testifying listen tape implicitly concluded 37 cannot call "request" crystal-clear questions seeking clarification. rarely clear; differences between certainty hesitancy well turn inflection spoken, especially where, isolated surrounding ordinary give-and-take this, reason why entire flavor colloquy—lasting less minutes—cannot trier fact. 38 consistent approach. informed rights, while discussing "deal" said, making deal." 478-479, 1881-1882. ceased him, jail. went jail asked Edwards; anyone, guard "he had" meet said: 39 "Here, critical facts found Arizona silent day], furnishing confront meeting secured oral admissions. Contrary holdings state courts, insists having exercised [preceding day] waive [next day]. For following reasons, agree." 482, 1883. 40 cases (1983), 636, (1984), similar mold; suspect ceases, seek resume later time. fit mold. advised transcribed few lines contained Court's opinion, ante, 92-93; slices legal abstraction thinner common sense permit conclude basis 41 apparently trying trick coerce waiving belied fact talk, plainly, just ends it." Subsequently, stated, more. lawyer," complied 42 implies badgered coerced changing mind obtaining fact, indisputable expression uncertainty, wanted do: 43 44 one, 45 46 47 48 hardly badgering. 49 makes much officer's clarifying explanation "You to." 230. ignores "either." sentence appears incomplete. response, then," interrupted completion sentence. unwarranted assumption attempting badger overreach petitioner. Again, import statement. 50 Common suggests both complete ask elects do, indicated tentative applicable language itself: 51 "Once warnings given, procedure clear. individual indicates manner, prior wishes silent, cease." 473-474, 1627-1628, (1966). 52 short satisfies faithfully follow our decision. opinion gives impression concerned overreaching, badgering, wearing suspect; fair 5-minute lead those factors here. According "she" referred unidentified woman named Chico. repeatedly restraint addition 646-647, 1343-1344, (1984); (1983) (Edwards "prophylactic designed protect custody ."); Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 45-46, 394, 395, 74 214 (1982) (per curiam); Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 298, 100 1682, 1688, 64 297 (1980); 2568, (1979) (discussing "rigid "an per se invocation Fifth Amendment requiring cease"); 474, 1627, (1966) ("If states wants attorney, present"). Cf. Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 105-106, 96 321, 327, 313 (1975) (rule termination silence prevents "persisting repeated efforts accused's] resistance make change mind"). Some ambiguous. People Superior Cal.3d 729, 735-736, 125 Cal.Rptr. 798, 802-803, 542 P.2d 1390, 1394-1395 (1975), cert. denied, 429 816, 97 58, 76 (1976); Ochoa State, 573 S.W.2d 796, 800-801 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Others attempted define requests, falling trigger Krueger, 82 311, 186, 189, 412 537, 540 (1980) ("[A]n explicit, unequivocal, unmistakable clarity," "every matter how vague, constitute counsel"), 1019, 3009, 390 Still others adopted third approach, holding "arguably" construed except "clarify" desires respecting Thompson Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 771-772 (CA5 1979); Moulds, Idaho 880, 888, 673 1074, 1082 (App.1983). Indeed, "only previous significance regard 'she' warned 'railroad' submitting 242; 92. Far creating "ambiguity" concerning reinforced REHNQUIST "implicitly request," post, 100, criticizes "relitigat[ing]" "essentially inquiry," 100. argument suggests, discuss instead comment suppress. "finding" indeed supra page. significant came administration warnings: "[H]e merely interest beginning begun." 558-559 similarly 100-104. reasoning plainly wrong. coming "at process" provided. 1612-1613 added). "entirely consistent" proscriptions Post, 102. cases, argues, once suspects "to time." Ibid. hand, initially proclaims, proper consider "the colloquy." 101. extent honor reject approach palpably untenable Edwards. Whether same sessions, so-called "flavor" dissipated Most devoted effort demonstrating extract trickery coercion. 103. course beside today safeguard whose does coercion employed. Nevertheless, reinforces concern absent immediate cessation "badgered" "overreaching." 98. below: fail mistaken meaning, justification given apparent proceeding end doing misrepresenting admonition: 'You to.' communication, inadvertent, imparted warning seriously misleading. ". regard, find particularly Smith, life admitted 'know what,' told, ostensibly way explaining choice." 377-378, 790, bore substantial similarity condemned where requesting interrogators. 479, 1882. precisely prevent. 2834.

Classification Label: 0