Share

Court: Suspects Can Be Interrogated Without Lawyer

by: Jesse J. Holland  |  The Associated Press

photo
Justice Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court's conservatives succeeded yesterday in overturning a ruling that mandated the presence of a lawyer while a defendant is being questioned by police. (Photo: AP)

    Washington - The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

    The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

    The court's conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned."

    Under the Jackson opinion, police could not even ask a defendant who had been appointed a lawyer if he wanted to talk, Scalia said.

    "It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant's consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer," Scalia said in the court's opinion.

    Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said the decision will have "minimal" effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present," Scalia said.

    The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

    "The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

    The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

    The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

    Eleven states also echoed the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.

    The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, who was found guilty in 2005 of the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.

    Montejo was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002 hearing, but never indicated that he wanted the lawyer's help. Montejo then went with police detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Montejo wrote a letter to Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.

    When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Montejo, irate that his client had been questioned in his absence. Police used the letter against Montejo at trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

    The Supreme Court sent the case back for a determination of whether any of Montejo's other court-provided protections, like his Miranda rights, were violated.

    The case is Montejo v. Louisiana, 07-1529.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This is huge.

This is huge.

Who is this idiot Solicitor

Who is this idiot Solicitor General Elena Kagen who says that this , "serves no real purpose", and offers "only meager benefits"? Does she mean that having a lawyer present to tell you that you don't have to talk to police if you don't want to, is meager. The police aren't going to tell you your rights. Most people who are arrested and being grilled by police would think they are required to answer the questions. The passing of the Mich. v Jackson law was to keep police from intimidating a suspect into giving evidence against themselves in violation of the 5th amendment. There are many people out there who are innocent of crimes and have been arrested and just want to help out. So, they answer questions the police ask. What a lot of people don't know is that the police cannot give evidence exonerating a suspect, only evidence to find them guilty. A suspect can talk all day and give the police tons of answers that give them an alibi, the police can't use that in court. But, if the suspect makes one mistake on a date or time or place - the police are required to use that as evidence against. With no lawyer present, who's going to inform the suspect of these laws and their rights. With no lawyer present, who's going to keep the rubber hoses and the water boarding from happening.

Who is Scalia working for?

Who is Scalia working for?

Yet another Obama

Yet another Obama disappointment. At least Kagen wasn't his nominee to the Court where she could have done more damage over a longer period of time.

Read David Simon's Homicide:

Read David Simon's Homicide: A Year On the Killing Streets. In his section on Miranda, he illustrates how cops have been interviewing suspects in spite of requests for counsel well before this case. If his observations in Baltimore circa 1988 hold true for the system at large, this ruling would seem to change nothing.

THE BEST ADVICE: as I've

THE BEST ADVICE: as I've said to most of my friends & all of my martial-arts students ... and it's worth repeating here: In interactions with law enforcement, the only constitutional right that counts is your 5th amendment right to remain silent. And you better exercise it. (of course, you are required to identify yourself. ..SILENTLY hand them your ID) DO NOT be tricked, shamed or threatened into speaking... If you tell an officer "A" & in court the officer says you said "A" & "B" (often a complete fabrication) you will not be able to tell the judge, "I said this but not that." You won't be able to cherry-pick. He won't accept it. For the judge, the police report/testimony is either completely true & accurate or completely rejected. The only defense against such fabrications, misquotes, incriminating paraphrases is to be able to say to the judge, "I exercised my 5th amendment right and said nothing." Do not speak AT ALL until your attorney is present. If they call you "uncooperative" take it as a compliment & an accurate description...would you help the hangman tie the noose?