On February 24, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that if a criminal suspect requests to speak with his lawyer, the police must stop their questioning and cannot restart interrogating him until 14 days has passed. This new rule, outlined in Maryland v. Shatzer narrows the Court’s previous ruling on this issue. In the 1981 case of Edwards v.
Full Answer
“Can police continue talking to suspect after he has requested a lawyer, as long as they're not asking questions?” Yes. As Matthew Bohrer noted, continuing non-relevent conversation is allowed, but there are hazards involved. In Brewer v. Williams, police officers were transporting Williams, a suspected murderer, between two cities. Williams had already invoked his right to …
May 26, 2009 · The Supreme Court ruled that police can now continue to question criminal suspects in some instances even after they've asked for a lawyer. It was a five to four Accessibility links
Petitioner Jesse Montejo was arrested on September 6, 2002, in connection with the robbery and murder of Lewis Ferrari, who had been found dead in his own home one day earlier. Suspicion quickly focused on Jerry Moore, a disgruntled former employee of Ferrari's dry cleaning business.
The Supreme Court opinion provides this background: Petitioner Jesse Montejo was arrested on September 6, 2002, in connection with the robbery and murder of Lewis Ferrari, who had been found dead in his own home one day earlier.
A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration. The assertion of the right doesn't carry over to the next detention. For example, assume Glen invokes his right to counsel and is released from custody.
If a detainee invokes the right to counsel for only a limited purpose, the police may interrogate "around" that purpose. For example, suppose that, after being Mirandized, Becky doesn't claim her Miranda rights and answers questions. The interrogating officer asks her to sign a written statement, but she says that she wants counsel to read it over first.
A defendant's statements after asserting Miranda may also be admissible if he or she initiates the conversation. But that's only if the police give a fresh set Miranda of warnings once the discussion picks up. For example, assume officers take John into custody and give him the Miranda warnings.
There's no time limit for invoking Miranda rights. After receiving the warnings, a detainee may invoke the rights immediately or after answering some questions. Whenever that invocation occurs, the police must stop investigative questioning. But any statements preceding assertion of Miranda rights are likely to be admissible.
The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent through this site could be intercepted or read by third parties. Once someone detained by the police invokes Miranda by expressing a desire to remain silent, have counsel present, or both, the police must stop interrogation.
The simple solution, suggested Stevens, is to provide such an attorney before trying to requestion a suspect.
The Supreme Court's decision came in the case of a Maryland man name Michael Shatzer, who was in prison for an unrelated crime when police first tried to talk to him about allegations that he had sexually abused his 3-year-old son.