Supreme Court Overrules Right To Counsel Precedent
The U.S. Supreme Court has threw out the landmark mid-1980′s ruling that forbid police from questioning suspects without their attorney present. The 1986 case, Michigan v Jackson, was overturned on Tuesday in a 5-4 ruling in a similar case, Montejo v Louisiana..
The majority 5-to-4 ruling, consisting of Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia found that under other precedent.
“It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer,” said Scalia.
Michigan v Jackson said if someone accused of a crime has an attorney or has requested the appointment of an attorney by the court, police may not question them without that attorney being present even if the accused agrees to waive the right to have their attorney present during that particular session of questioning. Under Jackson, any waiver of that right was presumed to be invalid because it was not made with the advice of counsel.
The ruling launched an angry dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the initial 1986 decision. Stevens argued the court’s decision dishonored “a fundamental right” that the accused should have guaranteed. In an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud before the court. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.
“The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, “can only diminish the public’s confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice.”
The decision stems from the the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, who was found guilty in 2005 for the shooting death of Louis Ferrari on Sept. 5, 2002.
Montejo was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002 hearing, but never indicated that he wanted the lawyer’s help. Montejo proceeded to go with police officers to assist them in looking for the murder weapon. While in the police car, Motego wrote a letter to the victims widow, incriminating himself.
When they returned to the prison, the public defender was waiting for Montejo was angry that his client had been questioned in his absence. Police used the letter against Montejo during the trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court sent the case back for a determination of whether any of Montejo’s other court-provided protections, such as his Miranda rights, were violated.
Opinion: Montejo v. Louisiana, 07-1529 United States Supreme Court.
Related posts:
- Supreme Court: Dog Fighting Videos Protected Free Speech?
- Justice Scalia: Supreme Court Should Abandon ‘Living Constitution’ Doctrine
- Liberty Counsel Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear School Graduation Free Speech Case
- Supreme Court: Second Amendment Is Fundamental & Applies to All 50 States
- Supreme Court Rejects Right For Criminals To DNA Test Results
Short URL: http://www.christianlawjournal.com/?p=1204
