Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant was charged with burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated assault. At trial, a woman testified that a man broke into her apartment, stabbed and sexually assaulted her. A police officer found appellant and read him his Miranda rights. Appellant immediately invoked his right to counsel saying, “I am not saying anything until I get my lawyer.” He was not questioned any further. A detective took him to the hospital where the complainant identified him. Then, the detective took him to the police station, again read him his Miranda rights, and told appellant that he needed some background information as part of booking. The detective said he was not going to ask any questions about the assault because he had been told that appellant had invoked his right to an attorney. Before the booking procedure began, appellant “got upset” and said that, although he “didn’t want to talk to the patrol officer,” he did want “to talk to a detective” about the assault. The detective testified that he was “absolutely” sure that appellant initiated the conversation about the assault, and he made sure that appellant wanted to “uninvoke” his right to counsel. So the detective again read appellant his Miranda rights, appellant expressly waived those rights, and he gave his first written statement, in which he admitted that he assaulted and “might have stabbed” the complainant. Three days later, the detective approached appellant in jail, told appellant that his first statement did not match up with the complainant’s account, and asked him to make another statement. After again receiving and waiving his Miranda rights, appellant gave a second statement that included a significantly different, more inculpatory, account of the events. The trial court admitted both of these written statements, and a jury convicted appellant of all three offenses and sentenced him to life in prison on each conviction. The court of appeals held that the second statement was inadmissible, because appellant did not himself re-initiate the second interview as well as the first interview The CCA notes that this is an issue of first impression in Texas: whether the police officer took appellant’s second statement in violation of the rule established in Edwards v. Arizona, because the officer initiated the second interview with appellant three days after appellant had initiated the first interview. HOLDING:Reversed in part and remanded. The court holds that, when a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, but then voluntarily reinitiates conversation with the police and expressly waives his right to counsel, the Edwards rule has been satisfied. Edwards is designed to prevent police from badgering an accused who is in police custody. The suspect’s unwillingness to answer questions without the advice of counsel is presumed to last until the suspect initiates future contact with the police regarding the investigation. In Oregon v. Bradshaw, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the Edwards rule and established a two-step procedure to determine whether a suspect has waived his previously invoked right to counsel. The first step requires proof that the suspect himself initiates further communication with the authorities after invoking the right to counsel. The second step requires proof that, after he reinitiates communication with the authorities, the suspect validly waives the right to counsel. Once this two-step waiver requirement is met, the suspect has countermanded his original election to speak to authorities only with the assistance of counsel, and the Edwards standard has been met. The critical inquiry is whether the suspect was further interrogated before he reinitiated conversation with law enforcement officials. If he wasn’t, the questioner has not violated Edwards. To illustrate, the court says that a suspect’s invocation of his right to counsel acts like a protective Edwards bubble, insulating him from any further police-initiated questioning. Only the suspect himself can burst that bubble by both initiating communications with police and expressly waiving his right to counsel. Once that bubble is burst, however, Edwards disappears, and the police are free to reinitiate any future communications and obtain any further statements as long as each statement is voluntarily made after the waiver of Miranda rights. In this case, appellant ended any police-initiated interrogation by requesting counsel. Under Edwards, it was presumed that appellant chose not to speak without assistance of counsel. But on that same day, he reinitiated further conversation with the detective, so the Edwards presumption disappeared. He then explicitly waived his right to counsel and made his first statement to the detective, and the protections provided by Edwards disappeared. Thus, the second written statement was not the result of a re-approach made in violation of Edwards, because appellant had taken himself out from under the protection of the Edwards bubble; thereafter, police were free to reinitiate further conversations with him. When he was approached three days later, he did not reinvoke the Edwards protection by reinvoking his right to counsel. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Keller, P.J., Meyers, Price, Womack, Johnson, Hervey, and Holcomb, JJ. Keasler, J., concurred.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.