Court Opinion

ID: 9663092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:27:24.449045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.574346
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). In People v Jackson, I concur with the part of Justice Ryan’s opinion regarding the post-polygraph statements. I would also find that appellant Jackson’s post-arraignment statement, which it is undisputed was a repetition of the oral and written statement given on August 1 in which the defendant confessed that he was the shooter, was, in light of the overwhelming evidence, if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v California, 386 US 18; 87 S Ct 824; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967). I would find in People v Bladel that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which the people concede had attached, was waived. Brewer v Williams, 430 US 387; 97 S Ct 1232; 51 L Ed 2d 424 (1977), itself permits waiver. In concluding that waiver did not occur, Justice Stewart for the majority noted, "The Court of Appeals did not hold, nor do we, that under the circumstances of this case, Williams could not, without notice to counsel have waived his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id., pp 405-406. Justice Stewart further emphasized that the detective "did not preface this effort [to elicit a response] by telling Williams that he had a right to the presence of a lawyer, and made no effort at all to ascertain whether Williams wished to relinquish that right.” 430 US 405. In Bladel it is clear that when the defendant mentioned he had asked for an appointed attorney he was asked if he wanted an attorney present and the defendant stated that he did not need one. I *78would find an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
While I recognize both the importance of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the appeal of the symmetrical application of Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477; 101 S Ct 1880; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981), and People v Paintman, 412 Mich 518; 315 NW2d 418 (1982), I am unconvinced without further guidance from the United States Supreme Court that we are constitutionally obligated to reach this result.