475 U.S. 625 (1986)
In two unrelated murder cases, respondents were separately arraigned and at that time each requested appointment of counsel. While in police custody, and before respondents were able to consult with counsel, respondents were interrogated after each was advised of his Miranda rights. During the interrogations, respondents confessed to their crimes, and their confessions were admitted into evidence at their respective trials. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed respondents' convictions on grounds that respondents' confessions were obtained in violation of their rights to counsel, in violation of U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI.
- On appeal, the Court affirmed holding that respondents' confessions, obtained from a police-initiated custodial interrogation, after respondents requested appointment of counsel at their arraignments but before respondents consulted with counsel, violated respondents' right to counsel, and that under such circumstances, any waiver of the right to counsel for the police interrogation was invalid.
Affirmed; because respondents' confessions were obtained after arraignment and after respondents had requested counsel, but before they could consult with counsel, their confessions were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and were therefore invalid.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure