Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1981

Edwards v. Arizona

451 U.S. 477 | 101 S. Ct. 1880 | 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 | 1981 U.S. LEXIS 96

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case creates the Edwards rule: once a custodial suspect clearly requests counsel, police cannot restart interrogation until counsel is available unless the suspect—not the police—reopens the conversation and validly waives the right.

Background

After a sworn complaint charged Robert Edwards with robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder, Arizona police arrested him and gave him Miranda warnings. Edwards said he understood his rights and initially agreed to speak. He denied involvement, gave an alibi statement, and then sought to make a deal. After an officer said he lacked authority to negotiate, Edwards tried unsuccessfully to call a county attorney and stated, “I want an attorney before making a deal.” The officer stopped questioning, and Edwards was taken to jail.

The next morning, detectives went to the jail to speak with Edwards. When a detention officer told Edwards that the detectives wanted to see him, Edwards said he did not want to talk to anyone. The officer nevertheless told him that he had to talk and brought him to the detectives. After renewed Miranda warnings and after listening to part of an accomplice’s taped statement, Edwards made incriminating oral admissions.

Edwards moved to suppress the admissions. Although the trial court initially granted suppression, it later reversed itself and found the statement voluntary. The confession was admitted at two trials; the first jury deadlocked and the second convicted Edwards. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Edwards had invoked both his right to silence and his right to counsel on the first night, but concluded that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived those rights during the detectives’ questioning the next day. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Miranda grounds.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a court may find a valid waiver of an invoked Miranda right to counsel merely because a later confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Holding

No. After a suspect invokes the right to counsel, the State must show not only that a later statement was voluntary, but also that the suspect knowingly and intelligently relinquished the previously asserted right to counsel.

Reasoning

Miranda protects a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination by requiring warnings before custodial interrogation and by requiring questioning to stop when the suspect requests counsel. A request for counsel therefore triggers a distinct and substantial protection: interrogation must cease until counsel is present.

The Arizona courts focused principally on whether Edwards’ admissions were voluntary. But voluntariness of a confession and a knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel are different inquiries. A statement may be voluntary in the sense that it was not coerced, yet still be obtained without a valid relinquishment of the suspect’s known right to have counsel present during questioning.

The Court rejected reliance on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, which used a general voluntariness standard for consent to a Fourth Amendment search. Schneckloth itself distinguished the right to counsel as a right requiring the more demanding knowing-and-intelligent-waiver standard. Thus, the Arizona courts applied the wrong framework once Edwards had requested counsel.

Issue #2

Whether police may initiate renewed custodial interrogation after a suspect has invoked the Miranda right to counsel, obtain a fresh Miranda waiver, and use the suspect’s resulting statements without first providing counsel.

Holding

No. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not subject the suspect to further custodial interrogation until counsel has been made available, unless the suspect himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with police.

Reasoning

The Court treated a request for counsel as a decisive event under Miranda. Miranda states that interrogation must cease until an attorney is present, and later cases likewise recognized that an accused who requests counsel has a right to be free from interrogation until consulting with a lawyer.

A waiver cannot be established simply by showing that, after renewed police-initiated questioning and fresh Miranda warnings, the suspect answered questions. Such a rule would permit authorities to wear down a suspect’s asserted choice to deal with police only through counsel and would deprive the Miranda counsel safeguard of practical force.

The rule does not make an invoked right to counsel irrevocable. A suspect may reopen dialogue with police, and voluntary statements made without interrogation may be used. If a suspect initiates further contact and the exchange develops into interrogation, a court must still determine whether the suspect knowingly and intelligently waived the rights to counsel and silence under the totality of the circumstances.

Issue #3

Whether Edwards’ January 20 admissions were admissible under the rule governing a previously invoked Miranda right to counsel.

Holding

No. Edwards’ admissions were inadmissible because detectives, not Edwards, initiated custodial interrogation after he had requested counsel and before counsel was made available.

Reasoning

Edwards clearly invoked his right to counsel on January 19 when he said that he wanted an attorney before making a deal. The Arizona Supreme Court had deemed the request sufficiently clear, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

The next day, the police returned to Edwards without providing counsel and without any request from him for further discussion. Indeed, Edwards initially told the detention officer that he did not want to talk to anyone, but was told that he had to meet with the detectives.

The detectives’ meeting with Edwards was custodial interrogation undertaken at the authorities’ initiative. His eventual willingness to speak after renewed warnings and after hearing the accomplice’s recording did not itself establish a valid waiver of the counsel right he had invoked. The confession therefore could not be used against him.

Concurrences

Chief Justice Burger

Reasoning

Chief Justice Burger concurred only in the judgment. He rejected the majority’s special rule limiting renewed police questioning after a request for counsel, believing that neither the Constitution nor Miranda required a distinct rule based on who initiated the renewed exchange.

In his view, the ordinary Johnson v. Zerbst inquiry should control: whether the suspect intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily relinquished a known right in light of all the circumstances. He considered the decisive fact here to be that Edwards told the jail officer he did not want to speak, but the officer said that he had to. That circumstance prevented a finding of voluntary waiver even under the traditional standard.

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell, joined by Justice Rehnquist, concurred in the result because the police took Edwards from his cell against his will and subjected him to renewed questioning. On those facts, he agreed that Edwards had not freely and knowingly waived counsel before interrogation resumed.

He worried, however, that the majority’s emphasis on whether the accused “initiated” further communication might create a rigid new per se rule. For Justice Powell, initiation was relevant evidence bearing on waiver, not an indispensable threshold requirement that supplanted the established totality-of-the-circumstances test.

Justice Powell also stressed that ordinary, noninterrogative contacts between officers and a suspect who has requested counsel need not be forbidden. In his view, police could engage in routine conversation or ask whether a suspect had changed his mind, so long as the ultimate question remained whether the suspect freely and knowingly chose to waive counsel before interrogation began.