Supremes another shift

Philip D. Cave

Is there about to be another shift in interrogations law from the Supreme Court. Earlier we mentioned several commentators on the subject of how the “new” court is changing personal rights when faced with investigators. See an earlier post: Exclusionary Rule — To be Dead Letter Law — Possibly?

Court questions Michigan v. Jackson from SCOTUSBlog.

The Supreme Court on Friday told lawyers in a pending case, heard on Jan. 13, to file new briefs on whether the Court should overrule its 1986 decision in Michigan v. Jackson. [475 U. S. 625 (1986)] In that ruling, the Court laid down a rule designed to assure that the right to counsel was not lost in a police interrogation. The Court decided there that, once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, any waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless that individual initiated communication. The new order issued Friday afternoon on the validity of that ruling is here, issued in Montejo v. Louisiana.

The Jackson decision is centrally at issue in Montejo. The Court granted review of that case on Oct. 1 and heard argument more than two months ago. Here is the question being reviewed: “When an indigent defendant’s right to counsel has attached and counsel has been appointed, must the defendant take additional affirmative steps to ‘accept’ the appointment in order to secure the protections of the Sixth Amendment and preclude police-initiated interrogation without counsel present.

It seems to me that this issue can arise in two situations in the military. A military suspect is being interrogated and asks for counsel. She contacts ADC/TDS/NLSO/LSSS, and is told that Captain Xray will talk with her. Or, a military accused has been served charges and a trial package with counsel request has already been forwarded to the defense counsel offices and a defense counsel assigned. The command tells the accused the name of the lawyer and that there is an appointment set for next week. In the meantime, law enforcement wants another interrogation, or a pretext contact.

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message