Court Opinion

ID: 9785587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:13:38.643674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:30.195270
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
dissenting.
Today the majority suppresses an un-coereed confession in a prosecution for sexual assault on a child, often the determinative piece of evidence in such cases, by applying a “bright-line” rule of exclusion, in support of what was no more than a “prophylactic” rule in the first place, in an overly mechanical way that would no longer be sanctioned even by the court that created both rules. Because I believe the majority has simply missed the proper analysis, and because I believe this hostile approach to the use of confessions as a legitimate investigative tool strikes an improper balance between protecting the constitutional rights of defendants and protecting future victims of such crimes, I respectfully dissent.
There is no suggestion that the defendant’s inculpatory statements were coerced or in any way involuntary. The majority does not even find that the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary or unintelligent. It simply holds that when the defendant demanded to know why he did not already have an attorney, that statement alone barred any further advisement of his rights and rendered invalid his subsequent waiver of his right to have counsel present during questioning. Because of the substantial and deleterious impact of such a rigid rule of exclusion on the public interest, even when properly applied, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that it is triggered only by a request for counsel that is not only unambiguous, but specifically seeks legal representation during questioning by the police, rather than merely legal representation in defense of the charges generally.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court extended the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination beyond the courthouse, including a right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation in farther protection of the privilege. To prevent the police from “badgering” a suspect to waive this so-called Fifth Amendment right to counsel, the Court also imposed a “bright-line” rule, barring further police-initiated contact outside the presence of counsel, once an unambiguous request for counsel has been made. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). A similar “bright-line” rule was held to bar police-initiated contact outside the presence of counsel after invocation, following formal charging, of an accused’s right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986). In limiting the scope of this latter “bright-line” rule to the offense with which the defendant had been charged, cf. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (holding that Edwards bright-line rule applies even to unrelated offenses), the Court drew a sharp distinction between invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and invocation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991); see also People v. Vigoa, 841 P.2d 311 (Colo.1992).
Unlike the Sixth Amendment right, the Fifth Amendment right is not limited in application to a specific offense that has already been formally charged because its purpose is to permit a suspect to deal with police only through counsel, rather than to protect a defendant at all critical confrontations with the government during a particular prosecution. In this sense, the different purpose for the Fifth Amendment right makes it broader *797than the Sixth Amendment right, but at the same time, since the two rights offer protections against different dangers, an attempt to invoke one does not necessarily indicate a desire to invoke the other. Regardless of the subjective intent of a suspect, however, McNeil makes clear that “[t]he rule of [Edwards ] applies only when the suspect ‘ha[s] expressed ’ his wish for the particular sort of lawyerly assistance that is the subject of Miranda,” McNeil, 501 U.S. at 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204 (quoting from Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. 1880), and that “requires at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In addition to holding that the assertion of the Sixth Amendment right does not in fact imply an assertion of the Miranda “Fifth Amendment” right, the McNeil Court went on to consider whether it should nevertheless adopt such a rule as a matter of sound policy. It rejected such an extension as unwise, primarily for two reasons. McNeil, 501 U.S. at 180, 111 S.Ct. 2204. First, it reasoned that any such rule would have only insignificant advantages because a suspect who does not wish to communicate with the police except through an attorney can simply tell them that when they actually give him the Miranda warnings. Id.; see also Vigoa, 841 P.2d at 317 (“All the defendant had to do to protect his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation ... was to tell [the detective] after being advised of his Miranda rights, that he wanted to confer with counsel prior to making any statement”). In the absence of any prior request by him to talk to them, there is no reason to think the suspect would feel “badgered” by a police request to interview him, which was the danger the Edwards rule was created to protect against. Second, such an expansion of the rule would, however, seriously impede effective law enforcement and run counter to the very policy decision originally made in Miranda, to require warnings and a right to counsel during custodial interrogation rather than bar the use of even voluntary confessions.
Although even an invocation of the Sixth Amendment right would prevent further police-initiated contact concerning the charges with regard to which the defendant had invoked the right, because no charges had yet been filed in this case, the defendant did not yet have a Sixth Amendment right to invoke. See People v. Anderson, 842 P.2d 621 (Colo.1992); People v. Vigoa, 841 P.2d 311 (1992). The question before the court in this case should therefore have been limited to whether the defendant’s question, “How come I don’t have an attorney right now,” could reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police, invoking his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, as distinguished from merely a desire for legal representation in the case.
Rather than requiring an unambiguous invocation of the only right of counsel to which the defendant was entitled at that point, the majority falls back upon language derived from Michigan v. Jackson, to the effect that courts must give broad, rather than narrow, interpretation to a defendant’s request for counsel. See maj. op. at 796. In McNeil, however, the author of Jackson laments, and simultaneously concedes, that the majority rejects “the common sense evaluation of the nature of an accused’s request for counsel that we expressly endorsed in Jackson.” McNeil, 501 U.S. at 185, 111 S.Ct. 2204 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In view of McNeil, the Supreme Court’s subsequent requirement of an unambiguous request for counsel to invoke the Edwards bright-line rule, see Davis, 512 U.S. at 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, cannot be understood to mean anything other than an unambiguous request for the assistance of counsel during interaction with the police.
The majority holding virtually eliminates any requirement for an expression by the defendant of his desire not to deal with the police without counsel being present by presuming as much whenever the defendant makes reference to counsel during an advisement by the police. This very case, however, demonstrates why such a presumption is unwarranted. The defendant’s question is clearly not an expression of any desire to have counsel intercede in conversations with *798the police but rather a statement of indignation that he has not already been provided counsel to represent him in the case. To the extent that such a remark could be taken as an unambiguous request for counsel at all, it can only be reasonably understood as a claim of right to counsel at a time before the defendant was ever faced with police interrogation.
The defendant was clearly anxious to talk to the police in order to learn about the charges against him, and upon completion of the advisement, without the slightest coaxing or “badgering,” he waived his right to have counsel present and spoke with them. Nothing in the scenario suggested that he ever wished to remain silent until counsel could be present. By indicating that the defendant would not be appointed counsel until he had been advised by the judge, the advising officer neither misled him nor denied him his right, but merely answered his question truthfully. Miranda did not purport to require police stations to maintain on-call defense attorneys to advise arrestees on demand. Davis, 512 U.S. at 460, 114 S.Ct. 2350. As in virtually every other venue in the country, had the defendant requested the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation, he would undoubtedly have simply been returned to his cell until he was advised and counsel could be provided. The defendant was constitutionally entitled merely to remain silent or have counsel present during questioning; not to have counsel appointed any sooner.
Without hesitation, the defendant signed a form indicating his understanding of his right to waive his Miranda rights and his willingness to answer questions at that time. Because it found a violation of the Edwards bright-line rule, the majority did not review the disti'ict court’s finding that the defendant’s waiver of his right to have counsel present was unintelligent. In the absence of evidence of illiteracy, mental or language problems, or illegibility of the form, however, I would find the mere failure to read the entire form out loud to the defendant insufficient to support a finding that the waiver was ineffective.
Because I believe the analysis of the majority does not reflect the current state of the law, as reflected in the jurisprudence of either this court or the United States Supreme Court; and because I believe this approach to the use of confessions burdens the public good without correspondingly protecting the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, I would reverse the district court’s order of suppression.
I therefore respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice KOURLIS joins in this dissent.