 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Harrington10/2/2003
take defendant back to the jail. No discussion of the charges occurred during the 35 to 40 mile trip back to the jail.
Trooper Gutierrez stated that upon arriving at the jail, defendant again asked him if he would stay and talk about the investigation. Trooper Maki, who was also in the car, testified that he heard defendant ask Trooper Gutierrez to stay with him and talk. According to defendant, the troopers asked for an interview room as soon as they arrived at the jail and they immediately took defendant into the room and began to question him and pressure him to confess. The interview lasted about one to one and a half hours, during which defendant denied the charges, confessed and then recanted his statements. Defendant was not read his Miranda rights again, but was reminded that he had been read his rights earlier in the day at the polygraph exam. At trial, Defendant admitted that he knew his rights at the time of the interview and that all statements he made were voluntary.
Defendant moved to suppress the statements that he made to the police after he was arraigned and appointed an attorney. At the hearing on defendant's motion, defendant argued that the statements should be suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the police initiated contact with him post-arraignment and post-appointment of counsel. The prosecution argued that the police properly obtained the statements after defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel by initiating contact with the police.
The trial court held that the troopers' testimony that defendant initiated the contact with the police after the polygraph examination was more persuasive than defendant's testimony. The court found that this evidence, along with Trooper Gutierrez's claim that he reminded defendant of his rights and defendant indicated that he knew them "by heart," was sufficient to prove that defendant initiated the contact; therefore, the motion to suppress was denied.
II.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees anyone accused in criminal proceedings the right to assistance of counsel. People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich 392, 402; 521 NW2d 538 (1994), cert den 513 US 1183; 115 S Ct 1175; 130 L Ed 2d 1128 (1995). Once defendant requests counsel either at questioning or at his arraignment, "the police may not conduct further interrogations until counsel has been made available to the accused, unless the accused initiates further communications, exchanges, or conversations with the police." Anderson, supra at 402 quoting People v Bladel, 421 Mich 39, 66; 365 NW2d 56 (1984). Thereafter, "if a defendant chooses to reinitiate communications, he must be sufficiently aware of both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to effectuate a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of each right." Id. at 66.
In reversing the trial court, the majority relies on Anderson, supra. In Anderson, after defendant requested a polygraph and was arraigned, the detective assigned to the case set up an appointment and contacted the defendant by leaving a message at his house. Id . The defendant received the message and contacted the detective to accept the offer for transportation to the polygraph examination. Id . At the administration of the exam, the defendant signed a standard waiver form, waiving his Miranda rights. Id. In a post-polygraph interview, the detective asked the defendant if he remembered the rights read to him earlier in the day and the defendant responded in the affirmative and then gave the detective a statement. Id . Our Supreme Court found that although the defendant initiated pre-arraignment contact regarding the polygraph exam
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|