Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On August 27, 2004, authorities arrested John Edward Morris pursuant to a warrant in Comal County. The next day, he made a written request for court-appointed counsel. The district court appointed Atanacio Campos to represent Morris on Aug. 30, 2004. Although there is no evidence that Campos personally contacted Morris before the police interrogation at issue, the record showed that Campos requested discovery from the state on Sept. 2, 2004, and that the state sent him a notice of arraignment on Sept. 3, 2004. On Sept. 1, 2004, a Comal County grand jury indicted Morris for attempted capital murder. On Sept. 8, 2004, eight days after authorities appointed Campos to represent Morris and six days after Morris’ counsel had communicated with the district attorney’s office about the case, law enforcement officers initiated a videotaped interrogation of Morris. The law enforcement officers did not inform Campos or the district attorney’s office that this interrogation would be taking place. During the interrogation, officers warned Morris regarding his rights pursuant to Miranda and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.22. He expressed a willingness to talk to the officers, even though he stated that an attorney would probably advise him not to. Morris then purportedly waived his right to be assisted by counsel both verbally and in writing and made several statements to the law enforcement officers. After consulting with counsel, Morris filed a motion to suppress the Sept. 8, 2004, statements on the basis that the interrogation violated his right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. He also argued that he did not make an intelligent and knowing waiver of those rights. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress. On appeal, the state contends that the trial court erred by entering the suppression order on the basis that Morris’ Sixth Amendment rights had not yet attached, because Morris and Campos had not established an attorney-client relationship. Alternatively, the state argues that even if an attorney-client relationship had been established, thereby bringing the Sixth Amendment into play, Morris could validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel during the interrogation without the involvement of his attorney. HOLDING:Affirmed. The Sixth Amendment, the court stated, guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to assistance of counsel for his defense. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment. Absent a valid waiver, the court stated, the defendant has the right to the presence of an attorney during any interrogation occurring after the first formal charging proceeding, the point at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel initially attaches. Texas courts, the court stated, hold that adversarial judicial proceedings commence when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant obtained through a complaint filed with a court. At the time of the interrogation in this case, the court stated, Morris had been arrested on a felony warrant, had been given an Art. 15.17 warning hearing, and had been indicted by a grand jury. His Sixth Amendment right to counsel had plainly attached. After the right to counsel attaches, the court stated, and the accused is represented by counsel, the police may initiate interrogation only through notice to defense counsel. Regardless of whether Morris was aware that the court had appointed an attorney for him, the court stated, or whether Morris specifically referred to his attorney during the police-initiated interrogation, the undisputed facts showed that an attorney-client relationship was established between Morris and Campos on Aug. 30, 2004, and was still in place on Sept. 8, 2004. In addition, the court stated that Morris did not waive his right to counsel. An accused who is represented by counsel, the court stated, may not waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a police-initiated interrogation without the involvement of his attorney. OPINION:Waldrop, J.; Puryear and Waldrop, J.J. Smith, J., did not participate in the decision.

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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.