Davis v. United States case brief summary
512 U.S. 452 (1994)
CASE FACTS
Defendant, suspect in murder, was interviewed by the Naval Investigative Service, and was given the military equivalent of Miranda warnings, which he voluntarily waived. After the interview was under way, defendant made comments, indicating at first he might want a lawyer, but then saying he did not want a lawyer. Questioning continued. The military judge at general court-martial denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the interview, holding that defendant's mention of a lawyer during interrogation was not a request for counsel and that the agents properly determined that defendant was not invoking his right to counsel. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review and the United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; equivocal requests or comments regarding an attorney did not require questioning officers to stop interrogation so that counsel could be present; questioning could continue unless a suspect actually requested an attorney.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
512 U.S. 452 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of a judgment
of the United States Court of Military Appeals, which affirmed
defendant's conviction for unpremeditated murder. The general
court-martial convening authority held that defendant's alleged
request for an attorney was ambiguous and that the questioning
officers properly clarified defendant's wishes with respect to
counsel before continuing questioning him about offense.CASE FACTS
Defendant, suspect in murder, was interviewed by the Naval Investigative Service, and was given the military equivalent of Miranda warnings, which he voluntarily waived. After the interview was under way, defendant made comments, indicating at first he might want a lawyer, but then saying he did not want a lawyer. Questioning continued. The military judge at general court-martial denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the interview, holding that defendant's mention of a lawyer during interrogation was not a request for counsel and that the agents properly determined that defendant was not invoking his right to counsel. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review and the United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that equivocal requests or comments regarding an attorney did not require questioning officers to stop interrogation so that counsel could be present and that questioning could continue unless a suspect actually requested an attorney.
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; equivocal requests or comments regarding an attorney did not require questioning officers to stop interrogation so that counsel could be present; questioning could continue unless a suspect actually requested an attorney.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment