Can Police Try again Flashcards
Michigan v. Mosley
Facts
Richard Bert Mosley was arrested in Detroit, Michigan, based on an anonymous tip implicating him in recent robberies. After his arrest, Detective James Cowie informed Mosley of his Miranda rights, which Mosley acknowledged by signing a rights notification form. Mosley refused to answer questions about the robberies and was not further interrogated about them. Later, Detective Hill questioned Mosley about an unrelated homicide after again informing him of his Miranda rights. Mosley initially denied involvement but eventually made an incriminating statement after being falsely told his accomplice had named him as the shooter. Mosley moved to suppress this statement, arguing, among other things, that it violated Miranda because it followed his invocation of the right to silence regarding the robberies. The trial court denied the motion, and Mosley’s statement was used in his trial for first-degree murder, resulting in his conviction.
Issue
Did the resumption of interrogation on a different subject, after Mosley invoked his Miranda right to silence regarding the initial subject of interrogation, violate his rights under Miranda v. Arizona?
Holding
No, the Supreme Court held that the police did not violate Mosley’s Miranda rights when they resumed interrogation on a different subject after he invoked his right to silence on the initial subject, provided that his “right to cut off questioning” was “scrupulously honored.”
Edwards v. Arizona
Facts
Edwards v. Arizona revolves around the post-arrest interrogation of Robbery, Burglary, and First-Degree Murder suspect, Edwards. After his arrest, Edwards was informed of his Miranda rights, to which he initially complied and provided a taped alibi. However, upon mention of making a deal, and after a failed attempt to call a county attorney, Edwards requested an attorney before making any deal. This led to the cessation of his interrogation. The following morning, without Edwards’ request and despite his initial reluctance, he was brought to two detectives. After being read his Miranda rights again and listening to part of a taped statement from an alleged accomplice, Edwards made an incriminating statement, not on tape, implicating himself in the crime. Prior to trial, Edwards sought to suppress this confession, arguing a violation of his Miranda rights as he had invoked his right to counsel.
Issue
The central issue in Edwards v. Arizona was whether the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments require the suppression of a post-arrest confession obtained after the defendant had invoked his right to consult counsel before further interrogation.
Holding
The United States Supreme Court held that once an accused has invoked their right to counsel, any waiver of the right to counsel during subsequent police-initiated interrogation cannot be considered valid unless the accused himself initiates further communication or conversations with the police. Therefore, the confession obtained from Edwards on January 20, without counsel present and after he invoked his right to counsel, violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed in Miranda v. Arizona. As a result, the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court was reversed.
Davis v. United States
Facts
The case concerns a United States Navy member, the petitioner, who was involved in an incident resulting in the death of another sailor, Keith Shackleton, after a dispute over a wager at a club on the Charleston Naval Base. Following the discovery of Shackleton’s body, the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) focused their investigation on the petitioner, who had been absent without authorization and was found to have a pool cue with a bloodstain. During an interview with the NIS, after waiving his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the petitioner ambiguously stated, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” which the interviewing agents sought to clarify. The petitioner clarified he was not asking for a lawyer and continued the interview, only to later assert, “I think I want a lawyer before I say anything else,” at which point the questioning ceased. The petitioner’s motion to suppress the statements made during the interview was denied by the Military Judge, and subsequent appeals upheld this decision, affirming the conviction of unpremeditated murder with a sentence to life confinement among other penalties.
Issue
The central issue before the Court was how law enforcement officers should respond when a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal reference to counsel during custodial interrogation, specifically whether such a statement requires officers to immediately cease questioning under the Edwards v. Arizona precedent, which mandates that questioning must stop when a suspect clearly asserts their right to counsel.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers may continue questioning a suspect until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney. An ambiguous or equivocal reference to counsel by the suspect does not obligate officers to cease questioning. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Military Appeals, finding no ground for suppression of the petitioner’s statements.
Reasoning
Maryland v. Shatzer
Facts
In August 2003, Michael Shatzer, Sr., who was serving a sentence for an unrelated child-sexual-abuse offense, was investigated for sexually abusing his 3-year-old son. Detective Shane Blankenship interviewed Shatzer, who invoked his right to an attorney, ending the interview. The investigation was closed shortly thereafter. Over two years later, in March 2006, Detective Paul Hoover reopened the investigation based on more specific allegations. Shatzer was interviewed again, waived his Miranda rights, and made incriminating statements. He did not request an attorney until after failing a polygraph test. Shatzer moved to suppress his statements under Edwards v. Arizona, arguing his right to counsel had been violated due to the previous invocation in 2003.
Issue
Does a break in custody end the presumption of involuntariness for statements made by a suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel, as established in Edwards v. Arizona?
Holding
Yes, a break in custody can end the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. Arizona, allowing for a subsequent waiver of Miranda rights and lawful interrogation. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland
