Is a Statement Made Without Having Access to a Lawyer After Invoking Right to a Lawyer Admissible ?
In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 387, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 1885 (1981), the petitioner was arrested, brought to a police station, and informed of his Miranda rights.
Initially, the petitioner indicated that he was willing to speak with the police, but he later invoked his fifth amendment right to have an attorney present during the custodial interrogation.
The petitioner was returned to the county jail.
The following morning, the police went to the county jail in order to speak with the petitioner.
The police informed him of his Miranda rights and the petitioner subsequently made a statement to the police implicating himself in the crime.
The issue before the United States Supreme Court was whether the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments " 'require suppression of a post-arrest confession, which was obtained after the petitioner had invoked his right to consult counsel before further investigation.'" Edwards, 451 U.S. at 478, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 382, 101 S. Ct. at 1881.
The Edwards Court held:
"When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.
An accused, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police." Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 386, 101 S. Ct. at 1884-85.
The Edwards court emphasized that "it is inconsistent with Miranda and its progeny for the authorities, at their insistence, to reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his right to counsel." Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 387, 101 S. Ct. at 1885.
The Edwards court found that the petitioner was subjected to a custodial interrogation on the second day, and the custodial interrogation was at the insistence of the police.
Therefore, the Edwards court held that the petitioner's statement, made without having had access to counsel, did not amount to a valid waiver and was inadmissible. Edwards, 451 U.S. at 487, 68 L. Ed 2d at 388, 101 S. Ct. at 1886.
Later, in Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 296, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 2397 (1990), the United States Supreme Court recognized that there are circumstances that do not implicate the concerns underlying Miranda.
In Perkins, an inmate informed the police that the respondent had told him about a murder that the respondent had committed.
The police located the respondent at a jail where the respondent was being held on an unrelated matter.
An undercover agent and an informant were placed in a cellblock with the respondent.
The undercover agent asked the respondent if he had ever "done" anybody.
The respondent said that he had and proceeded to describe at length the events of the murder.