Facts of the Case
Robert Bernard Jackson was charged with second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. During his arraignment, Jackson requested that the court appoint him counsel. The next day, Jackson was interrogated again before he was able to communicate with his attorney. Jackson confessed during that interrogation.
In December 1978, Rudy Bladel killed three railroad employees in Michigan. Bladel was arrested shortly thereafter, the police questioned him twice but released him. Two months later, he was arrested again and agreed to talk to the police without an attorney present. During his arraignment the following day, Bladel requested counsel, and the court assigned a firm to his case. The next day, the police questioned Bladel again before the firm was able to contact him and before he was aware he had been assigned counsel. During this questioning, Bladel confessed.
In both cases, the trial courts held that the confessions, which were obtained after arraignment and before the defendants were able to meet with counsel, were properly received into evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Jackson’s conviction, and he appealed. The Michigan Supreme Court consolidated Jackson and Bladel’s cases and ruled that both confessions should not have been admitted into evidence.
Questions
When a defendant requests counsel at an arraignment, are the police allowed to initiate interrogations before that defendant has had a chance to consult with the appointed counsel?
Conclusions
-
No. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of representation prevent the police from initiating an interrogation after a defendant has requested counsel. Therefore, unless the accused initiates the conversation, police are not allowed to ignore a request for counsel and begin an interrogation. The Court also held that the arraignment marks the beginning of the judicial process and the moment when the accused has a Sixth Amendment right to rely on counsel to act as “a ‘medium’ between him and the State.” From this point on, the suspect becomes the accused, and the assistance of counsel becomes essential. The Court rejected the state’s argument that the defendant’s request for counsel only applied to formal legal proceedings and noted that such a request is a “significant event” requiring additional attention and safeguards. If a defendant asks for counsel at an arraignment, any waiver of that right to counsel during police-initiated interrogations that may follow would be invalidated.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger authored a concurring opinion that warned of the dangers of using “hard cases” with difficult fact scenarios, such as these, to set “bright-line rules” for all cases.
Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented and argued that the bright-line rule the majority opinion established should only apply to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and not Sixth Amendment rights. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined in the dissent.