A defendant is arrested and taken into custody. During custodial interrogation, the defendant clearly states, 'I think I should talk to a lawyer before I say anything else.' The police immediately stop questioning, but two hours later, before the defendant has spoken to a lawyer, the same police officers re-initiate questioning about a different crime. Is the defendant's statement admissible?
- ANo, because once the right to counsel is invoked, all questioning must cease until counsel is present or the defendant initiates further communication.
- BNo, because the police did not provide new Miranda warnings before the second interrogation.
- CYes, because two hours had passed since the initial invocation.
- DYes, because the subsequent questioning was about a different crime.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. No, because once the right to counsel is invoked, all questioning must cease until counsel is present or the defendant initiates further communication.
Under *Edwards v. Arizona*, once an accused in custody invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel, all police-initiated interrogation must cease. This prohibition applies to *any* questioning about *any* crime, not just the one for which they were initially questioned, and continues until counsel is made available or the accused themselves initiates further communication with the police. The passage of time or a different crime does not override this rule.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. While new warnings are typically required for subsequent interrogations, the fundamental issue here is the *Edwards* rule prohibiting *any* police-initiated questioning after a right to counsel invocation, rendering the lack of warnings a secondary concern.
- C. The passage of time does not terminate an invoked right to counsel; it remains in effect until counsel is provided or the defendant re-initiates.
- D. The 'different crime' exception applies to the *right to remain silent* (under *Michigan v. Mosley*), not the *right to counsel*.
Miranda Right to Counsel (Edwards Rule)
Once a suspect in custody unequivocally invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel, all police-initiated interrogation must cease, and cannot resume until counsel is present or the suspect re-initiates communication.
- Applies to all questioning, regardless of the crime.
- A 'bright-line' rule to protect the suspect's ability to consult with an attorney.
- Distinguish from the right to remain silent (Mosley rule).
Memory trick: Silence & Counsel: Your Custodial Shields.