Legal Document

475 U.S. 625 106 S.Ct. 1404 89 L.Ed.2d 631 MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Robert Bernard JACKSON. Petitioner, v. Rudy BLADEL. Nos. 84-1531, 84-1539. Argued Dec. 9, 1985. Decided April 1, 1986. Syllabus Respondents, at separate arraignments in a Michigan trial court on unrelated murder charges, each requested appointment of counsel. But before respondents had an opportunity to consult with counsel, police officers, after advising their Miranda rights, questioned them and obtained confessions. Both were convicted over objections the admission confessions evidence. The Court Appeals reversed remanded one case, but affirmed other. Supreme considered both cases together, held that improperly violation Sixth Amendment. Held: should have been suppressed. Although rule Edwards Arizona, 451 477, 101 S.Ct., 1880, 68 378, once suspect has invoked his right may not initiate interrogation until counsel made available suspect, rested Fifth Amendment concerned request for during custodial interrogation, reasoning case applies even greater force these cases. assertion is no less significant, need additional safeguards clear, when arraignment basis it If defendant's or similar proceeding, as cases, any waiver police-initiated invalid. Pp. 629-635. 421 Mich. 39, 365 N.W.2d 56 (1984), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed concurring judgment, post, p. 636. REHNQUIST, dissenting opinion, POWELL O'CONNOR, joined, 637. Brian E. Thiede, Jackson, Mich., petitioner James Krogsrud, Detroit, respondent No. 84-1531. Ronald J. Bretz, Lansing, Justice STEVENS Court. 1 In 378 (1981), we accused person custody who "expressed desire deal only through subject further by authorities him, unless himself initiates communication, exchanges, conversations police." Id., 484-485, 1884-1885. Solem Stumes, 465 638, 104 1338, 79 579 reiterated "Edwards established bright-line safeguard pre-existing rights," id., 646, 1343: "once subsequent conversation must be initiated him." 641, 1340. 2 question presented two whether same defendant formally charged crime arraignment. postarraignment obtained—and violated—because defendants "requested arraignments, afforded interrogations." 67-68, 56, 69 (1984). We agree holding. 3 * relevant facts briefly stated. Respondent Bladel was three railroad employees Amtrak Station Michigan, December 31, 1978. Bladel, disgruntled former employee, arrested January 1979, and, being occasions, released 3. He again March 22, agreed talk evening without On following morning, Friday, 23, arraigned. appointed him because he indigent. detective charge investigation present A notice promptly mailed law firm, firm did receive Tuesday, 27. interim, 26, officers interviewed county jail confession from him. Prior questioning, properly advised rights.1 inquired about representation several times since arraignment, told represent 4 overruled Bladel's objection admissibility all four statements. appeal conviction sentence, challenged confession. first rejected challenge conviction, Mich.App. 397, 308 230 but, reconsideration light recent decision State Court, new trial. 118 498, 325 (1982). then granted prosecutor's application leave Jackson's conviction. 5 Jackson second-degree conspiracy commit murder. participants wife's plan her husband killed July 12, 1979. Arrested 30, series six statements response questioning prior 4:30 p.m. August 1. During involved another statement "confirm" shot victim. As true prearraignment statements, preceded advice rights agreement proceed present. 6 seventh received 114 649, 319 613 It distinguished ground attorney whereas Edwards' police. Accordingly, murder, although set aside grounds. 7 Noting attached time concluded "applies analogy those situations where requests arraigning magistrate. Once this occurs, conduct interrogations accused, communications, . cannot simply ignore unequivocal counsel." 66-67, N.W.2d, 68-69 (footnote omitted). certiorari, 471 1124, 105 2654, 86 271 (1985), now affirm.2 II 8 postarraignment, interrogations. existence clear. sources. protection against compelled self-incrimination provides Edwards, U.S., 482, 1883; 384 436, 470, 1602, 1625, 16 694 (1966). guarantee assistance also signals "the initiation adversary judicial proceedings" thus attachment Amendment, United States Gouveia, 467 180, 187, 188, 2292, 2297, 81 146 (1984);3 thereafter, government efforts elicit information including "critical stages" applies. Maine Moulton, 474 159, 85 139 (1985); Henry, 447 264, 100 2183, 65 115 (1980); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 97 1232, 51 424 (1977); Massiah States, 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246 (1964). validly waived 9 Court's holding privilege self-incrimination. noted relevance various precedents, 484, 1884, n. 8, found unnecessary rely possible applicability 480, 7, 1883, 7. judge Amendment's counsel.4 argues apply circumstances there are legal differences claims; factual contexts signed valid waivers consider contentions turn. 10 contends principles underlying Amendments compel conclusion claim. flows interrogations, argues; its provision far principle assessing inappropriate. 11 our however, reasons prohibiting uncounseled prisoner asked help lawyer stronger offense than before. State's argument misapprehends nature pretrial protections explained significance formal accusation, corresponding counsel: "[G]iven plain language purpose protecting unaided layman critical confrontations adversary, attaches criminal proceedings 'is mere formalism.' Kirby Illinois, 406 689, 92 1882. 'that committed itself prosecute, adverse positions solidified. finds faced prosecutorial forces organized society, immersed intricacies substantive procedural law.' " 189, 2298. 13 result, "Sixth guarantees least 'medium' between State." 176, 479. Thus, requires much interrogation. 14 Indeed, accusation made—and previously just "suspect" become "accused" within meaning Amendment—the constitutional such importance longer employ techniques eliciting might entirely proper earlier stage investigation. surreptitious employment cellmate, see (1980), electronic surveillance third parties, supra; (1964), violate though methods permissible indictment.5 Far undermining rule, difference applied claim asserted actually support circumstances. 15 relies maintains intended encompass This argument, backdrop standard rights. Almost half century ago, Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), involving alleged "indulge every reasonable presumption fundamental rights." 464, 1023. For reason, burden establishing waiver. 404, 1242. Doubts resolved favor settled approach questions us give broad, rather narrow, interpretation counsel—we presume lawyer's services prosecution.6 reject suggestion respondents' construed proceedings.7 points difference: know That claimed distinction similarly unavailing. bar, investigations particularly unconvincing. More generally, require impute knowledge state actor another. concerns confrontation individual.8 One actors (the police) ignorance defendants' court). 17 that, differences, context will generate confusion. However, frequently emphasized characteristics "bright-line" quality. See, e.g., Smith 469 91, 98, 490, 494, 83 488 (1984); 1343; Oregon Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1044, 103 2830, 2834, 77 405 (1983) (plurality opinion); 1054, 2, 2840, (MARSHALL, dissenting). do applying station, somehow diminishes clarity. To extent doubts interpreting responsibility respond request, today resolves them. 18 Finally, signing notion suspect's acquiescence could establish 1884. find warrant different view under analysis. rejection comparable based, part, review cases.9 Just written insufficient justify analysis, so too they analysis.10 III 19 grounded understanding [is] significant event," 485, 1885, "additional necessary asks conclude hold if assertion, 20 correctly perceived judgments accordingly 21 ordered. 22 Chief judgment. 23 I concurred judgment 487-488, 1886, 66 doing observed: 24 "The extraordinary suspected basis, 'good' things can carried far." 25 urge rules readily applicable host varying would likely relieve somewhat more doubling work decades, seems leading absolutist, mechanical treatment subject. At times, seems, mind conflict what behavioral—and theological—specialists long recognized natural human people confess wrongdoing. T. Reik, Compulsion Confess (1959). 26 must, course, protect persons coercion, step concept well beyond sound, common-sense boundaries. example infirmity trying perform rulemaking function case-by-case ignoring reality coming typical, "hard" invokes ancient axiom hard make bad law. 27 Stare decisis calls my context, plainly reexamination. Increasingly, borrow Cardozo, "criminal[s] go free constable blundered." People Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926). 28 whom O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 29 rests deceptively simple line reasoning: created rights; important therefore, prefers neat syllogism effort discuss answer question: Does sense Amendment? think does not, therefore dissent unjustified extension 30 My disagreement stems differing understandings Edwards. (1966), "a showing responded "prophylactic rule," 644, 645, 1342-1343, deemed prevent effectively "overriding" "badgering" into waiving See J.) ( "designed badgered officers").1 short, later confer existed before; 'created protective umbrella serving enhance guarantee.' supra, 4, 1342 quoting Payne, 412 47, 54, 93 1966, 1970, 36 736 (1973); Shea Louisiana, 470 51, 61, 1065, 1071, 38 (1985) (WHITE, dissenting) (describing purpose" rule). 31 What either forgets chooses "constitutional guarantee" referred Stumes prohibition prohibition, underpinning prophylactic announced itself. Moran Burbine, 412, 424-425, 1135, ----, 410 (1986); Elstad, 298, 304-305, 306, 1285, 1290-1291, 1292, 222 (1985).2 like Miranda, imposes ensure "coerced" "involuntary." Seen light, nothing second layer protection, addition conferred otherwise incriminate 32 dispositive instant address kind needed question, me, clearly "no." suggest commonly deny Nor, borne out empirical justification namely, widespread problem violating, probably continue violate, course 445-458, 1612-1619,3 conspicuously absent context. put simply, forth makes except linked 33 Not cut loose analytical moorings, manner graphically reveals illogic position. phrases "to arraignment." Ante, 626 (emphasis added). And ultimately limits "initiate 636 34 other words, most assuredly per se moment attaches, defendant. Such represent, all, shockingly dramatic restructuring balance traditionally struck larger society. Applying explicit render completely nugatory extensive discussion "waiver" 401-406, 1241-1243, (1977). 410, 1245 (POWELL, concurring) ("The issue voluntary waiver"); 417, 1248 (BURGER, ("[I]t very clear Williams counsel); 430, 1256, joined BLACKMUN ("It matter absence MESSAGE(S) *MORE SECTIONS FOLLOWArizona, waiver").4 35 leaves straitjacket. limitation places version unlike "right counsel" arise affirmatively depend 1242; Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 513, 884, 888, 70 (1962). acknowledges footnote stresses "we turns [for counsel]." 633, 6. satisfactory explanation extend yet limit foresighted enough, lucky always understood purposes. attempts emphasis legally insignificant stating construe extremely fact considering validity interrogation." Ibid. sounds reasonable, flatly inconsistent remainder holds made. ante, 635-636, 10. obvious merely "extremely fact"; rather, counts. 37 truth position adopts glaring inconsistencies precisely lacks coherent, analytically sound decision. designed inception himself, meaningfully outside reverse below. warnings given 22. certain inculpatory denied noted, own evidence substantial. 44, 58-59, 2. fourth, fifth, sixth suppressed grounds delay statute. adequate independent writ certiorari dismissed. state-court prearraignment-delay statement. court's mean regardless decision, controlled us. concedes represented proceedings, point. Brief Petitioner disputes contention, 84-1539, pp. 24-26. decisions untenable. 398, 1239, (1977) ("[A] entitled him—'whether way charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, arraignment' ") added), 682, 1877, 1882, 411 (1972) opinion). 187-188, 2297 (quoting ); Estelle Smith, 454, 469-470, 1866, 1876, 359 (1981) Moore 434 220, 226, 98 463, 54 ). Cf. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 57, 53 55, 59, 158 (1932) ("[T]he period defendants" "from beginning trial") moreover, distinct requiring presence Hamilton 368 52, 157, (1961) (Alabama stage"). "defendants' magistrate implicated counsel," 62, reason express comment Similarly, stage" applicability. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 1149 (1967) (Sixth postindictment lineup implicated). construing request. 1242 upon defendant"); (1962) requisite, furnished request"). Rather, comments accused's "Although judges lawyers understand appreciate subtle distinctions average not. When attorney, officer magistrate, invoking; expected articulate exactly why purposes seeking little afford relief permit identical judge. indicates believe sufficiently capable dealing adversaries singlehandedly." 63-64, 67. 170-171, 479, 88 481 (1985): "Once asserted, honor it. means obtaining affirmative obligation respect preserve choice seek assistance" added) After "when appended footnote: "In 387 [97 424] (1977), where, 201 [84 246] accrued, inferred overt forms incriminating information. Brewer, engaged admissions elicited absence. McLeod Ohio, 381 356 [85 1556, 682] (1965), summarily indictment appointed." finding relationship considerable attention courts, 55-62, 63-67 (discussing collecting cases), commentaries, 15, 63, 15. suppression decide general waivers. dissenters Bradshaw apparently plurality's characterization rule. 1055, (citing passage plurality quoted text, noting "[t]he dispute 'initiation' rule"). suggests, dictum, 629. "right." 423, 1142, 1; 1290-1291. Instead, confers Even exists solely himself. reviewed numerous instances brutality used coerce confessing guilt. stated: use physical violence unfortunately, relegated past part country. examples above undoubtedly exception now, object concern. Unless achieved assurance practices eradicated foreseeable future." 446-447, 1613. 428, waiver, occurring charging point initially attaches"). Several indeed erected virtually barriers kinds conduct. These share characteristic separates cases; impossible 176-177, (undisclosed party); 265, 273, 2184, 2188 (use undisclosed informant); 202, 1200 surveillance). Here, hand, totally open aboveboard, said executing standards (1938).

Classification Label: 0