Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1986

Michigan v. Jackson

475 U.S. 625 | 106 S. Ct. 1404 | 89 L. Ed. 2d 631 | 1986 U.S. LEXIS 91 | 54 U.S.L.W. 4334

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, Michigan v. Jackson held that a charged defendant's request for counsel at arraignment barred police-initiated interrogation and invalidated any resulting waiver; the Supreme Court later overruled this rule in Montejo v. Louisiana (2009).

Background

The Court considered two consolidated Michigan cases. After their arraignments, both defendants requested appointed counsel. Before either had an opportunity to consult with counsel, police initiated further custodial questioning, gave Miranda warnings, and obtained incriminating statements after each defendant agreed to speak without a lawyer present.

In Bladel's case, officers questioned him in jail three days after his arraignment and obtained a confession, even though he had repeatedly asked about his representation. In Jackson's case, officers questioned him the morning after his arraignment to confirm that he was the shooter. Officers involved in both investigations had attended the arraignments.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the postarraignment statements had to be suppressed. It reasoned that, once the defendants requested counsel at arraignment, police could not initiate further interrogation until counsel was available unless the defendants themselves initiated the communication. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Court had jurisdiction over Jackson's postarraignment statement despite the Michigan Supreme Court's separate state-law ruling suppressing several earlier statements.

Holding

Yes. The admissibility of Jackson's seventh, postarraignment statement turned on the Michigan Supreme Court's federal Sixth Amendment analysis and was properly before the Court.

Reasoning

Jackson argued that certiorari should be dismissed because the Michigan Supreme Court had also suppressed several of his earlier statements under a state statute governing prearraignment delay. The Court rejected that argument because the state-law ruling did not govern the seventh statement at issue here.

Although suppression of the earlier statements meant that Jackson's conviction would be reversed regardless of the federal ruling, the Michigan court's treatment of the seventh statement rested on its Sixth Amendment analysis. The Court could therefore review that distinct federal question.

Issue #2

Whether the Edwards v. Arizona bar on police-initiated questioning after a request for counsel applies when a formally charged defendant requests counsel at arraignment.

Holding

Yes. After a defendant asserts the right to counsel at arraignment or a similar proceeding, police may not initiate interrogation unless counsel is made available or the defendant initiates further communication.

Reasoning

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached when the defendants were arraigned, because arraignment marks the beginning of adversary judicial proceedings. A postarraignment interrogation is a critical stage at which the accused has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, independent of the Fifth Amendment protections governing custodial interrogation.

The Court concluded that the rationale of Edwards applies at least as strongly after formal charges. Once the State has committed itself to prosecution, the accused confronts the organized prosecutorial forces of the government and is entitled to rely on counsel as an intermediary between himself and the State.

A defendant's request at arraignment must be read broadly. Because courts presume against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, the Court presumed that a defendant who asks for counsel seeks the lawyer's aid at every critical stage, including later police questioning, rather than only at formal courtroom proceedings.

Police could not avoid the rule by claiming ignorance of a request made to the arraigning judge. The Sixth Amendment regulates the relationship between the accused and the State as a whole, so knowledge held by one state actor, such as the court, is imputed to other state actors, including police.

Applying Edwards in this setting preserved rather than impaired its bright-line character. The rule gives police a clear instruction: after a charged defendant requests counsel at arraignment, they must not initiate interrogation until counsel is available, absent the defendant's own initiation of further discussion.

Issue #3

Whether Miranda warnings and a defendant's signed agreement to speak can establish a valid Sixth Amendment waiver after police initiate interrogation following a request for counsel at arraignment.

Holding

No. A waiver obtained in response to police-initiated postarraignment interrogation is invalid after the defendant has requested counsel at arraignment.

Reasoning

Edwards had already rejected the proposition that renewed warnings and a suspect's response to police-initiated questioning establish a valid waiver after the suspect invokes counsel. The Court found no basis to apply a less protective rule when the right asserted is the Sixth Amendment right to counsel after formal charges.

The Court's prior Sixth Amendment cases likewise cautioned against inferring waiver merely from an accused's response to overt or subtle efforts by the State to elicit incriminating information. The defendants' written or oral acquiescence after renewed Miranda warnings therefore could not cure the constitutional defect created by police-initiated questioning.

Accordingly, because police initiated the interrogations after Jackson and Bladel requested counsel at arraignment, their purported waivers were invalid and their postarraignment statements had to be suppressed.

Concurrences

Chief Justice Burger

Reasoning

Chief Justice Burger concurred only because stare decisis required adherence to Edwards, not because he agreed with the expansion of its rule. He warned that the Court's preference for bright-line rules was producing an overly mechanical and absolutist approach to confessions.

In his view, constitutional law must protect people in custody from coercion, but the Court had extended those protections beyond sensible limits. He urged reconsideration of Edwards, concerned that the exclusion of voluntary confessions increasingly allowed criminals to escape conviction because of police mistakes.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist argued that Edwards was a Fifth Amendment prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a custodial suspect into abandoning the Miranda protection against compelled self-incrimination. Because that rule was tied to the special risks of custodial coercion, he maintained that it could not simply be transferred to the Sixth Amendment context.

The majority's claim that Sixth Amendment rights are more important than Fifth Amendment rights did not, in his view, answer the relevant question: whether a per se Edwards rule was needed to protect the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He saw no demonstrated pattern of police violations of Sixth Amendment rights comparable to the coercive-interrogation concerns that motivated Miranda and Edwards.

He also found the majority's request-for-counsel limitation analytically inconsistent. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon formal charging and does not depend on a defendant's request, yet the majority made the existence of a request dispositive by treating it as an absolute bar to a later waiver during police-initiated questioning.

Unlike cases involving covert informants or secret electronic surveillance, the police questioning here was open and accompanied by Miranda warnings. Justice Rehnquist would have evaluated whether each defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived the Sixth Amendment right under ordinary waiver principles, rather than impose an automatic exclusion rule. He would have reversed.