 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Kotila v. Commonwealth12/19/2002
by substantial evidence, consistent with RCr 9.78 the trial court decision should prevail.
The majority admits that the interrogating detective did not know whether Appellant had been given his rights or whether he had requested an attorney. This would explain why Detective Nelson again informed Appellant of his rights before he began questioning him. Appellant did not request counsel and the interrogation proceeded. This case differs from Edwards v. Arizona, where the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and the police ceased questioning him, but resumed questioning the next day. The United States Supreme Court held that the resumed questioning constituted a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights because once the right to counsel was invoked all interrogation must cease and can only resume if the defendant initiates the subsequent contact.
To require suppression under these facts, Appellant must have made an unambiguous, unequivocal statement in a manner that a reasonable police officer would understand to be a request for the assistance of counsel and an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. Appellant did not make such a statement. Therefore, there was no violation.
The trial court was required to determine whether the initial statements made by Appellant should be suppressed and it held, based on substantial evidence, that the statements should not be suppressed. The majority opinion has not demonstrated that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its decision. The rules demand that the findings of the trial court be treated as conclusive. This Court should affirm.
Wintersheimer, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|