Edwards V. Arizona
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Edwards v. Arizona'', 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is a decision by the
United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment
right to counsel In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers) and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal exp ...
, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Statements obtained in violation of this rule are a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.


Facts

Edwards was arrested at his home on charges of robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder. Following his arrest, at the police station, he was informed of his Miranda rights. Edwards stated he understood his rights, and was willing to submit to questioning. After being told that another suspect was arrested in connection with the same crime, Edwards denied involvement and then sought to "make a deal". Edwards then proceeded to call a county attorney and shortly afterwards he said to his interrogator "I want an attorney before making a deal." Immediately, the questioning ceased and Edwards was taken to county jail. The following morning, two detectives came to see him stating that they wanted to talk to him. At first Edwards resisted, but he was told he had to talk to the detectives. The officers informed him of his Miranda rights, and obtained a confession from him. At trial, Edwards sought to suppress his confession. The lower court and the Arizona Supreme Court denied the motion.


Opinion of the Court

The Court held that a waiver of the right to counsel, once invoked, not only must be voluntary, but also must constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a known right or privilege. The fact that Edwards confessed after being read his
Miranda rights In the United States, the ''Miranda'' warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection fr ...
does not demonstrate that he understood right to counsel and intelligently and knowingly relinquished it. Once the
right to counsel In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers) and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal exp ...
under the Fifth Amendment has been invoked, a valid waiver cannot be shown just by the accused responding to interrogations despite
Miranda warnings In the United States, the ''Miranda'' warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection fr ...
having been read. In ''
Rhode Island v. Innis ''Rhode Island v. Innis'', 446 U.S. 291 (1980), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of ''Miranda'' warnings. Under ''Miranda v. Arizona'', police are forbidden from inte ...
'', , the court clarifies the meaning of interrogation.


Contrast to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Under '' Montejo v. Louisiana'' (2009), the Sixth Amendment's
right to counsel In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers) and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal exp ...
does not prevent police from initiation of interrogation once the right attaches. This is in contrast to the Fifth Amendment
right to counsel In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel (i.e., lawyers) and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal exp ...
, where the police custodial interrogation is not permitted as per ''Edwards''.


See also

*'' Maryland v. Shatzer'' (2010) *
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 451 This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 451 of the ''United States Reports The ''United States Reports'' () are the official record ( law reports) of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, ...


External links

* {{US5thAmendment, self United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court 1981 in United States case law 1981 in Arizona Legal history of Arizona United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law