Minnick v. Mississippi

Decision Date03 December 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-6332,89-6332
PartiesRobert S. MINNICK, Petitioner v. MISSISSIPPI
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner Minnick was arrested on a Mississippi warrant for capital murder. An interrogation by federal law enforcement officials ended when he requested a lawyer, and he subsequently communicated with appointed counsel two or three times. Interrogation was reinitiated by a county deputy sheriff after Minnick was told that he could not refuse to talk to him, and Minnick confessed. The motion to suppress the confession was denied, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. The State Supreme Court rejected his argument that the confession was taken in violation of, inter alia, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, reasoning that the rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378—that once an accused requests counsel, officials may not reinitiate questioning "until counsel has been made available" to him—did not apply, since counsel had been made available.

Held: When counsel is requested, interrogation must cease, and officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney. In context, the requirement that counsel be "made available" to the accused refers not to the opportunity to consult with an attorney outside the interrogation room, but to the right to have the attorney present during custodial interrogation. This rule is appropriate and necessary, since a single consultation with an attorney does not remove the suspect from persistent attempts by officials to persuade him to waive his rights and from the coercive pressures that accompany custody and may increase as it is prolonged. The proposed exception is inconsistent with Edwards' purpose to protect a suspect's right to have counsel present at custodial interrogation and with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, where the theory that the opportunity to consult with one's attorney would substantially counteract the compulsion created by custodial interrogation was specifically rejected. It also would undermine the advantages flowing from Edwards' clear and unequivocal character. Since, under respondent's formulation of the rule, Edwards' protection could be reinstated by a subsequent request for counsel, it could pass in and out of existence multiple times, a vagary that would spread confusion through the justice system and lead to a loss of respect for the underlying constitutional principle. And such an exception would leave uncertain the sort of consultation required to displace Edwards. In addition, allowing a suspect whose counsel is prompt to lose Edwards' protection while one whose counsel is dilatory would not distort the proper conception of an attorney's duty to his client and set a course at odds with what ought to be effective representation. Since Minnick's interrogation was initiated by the police in a formal interview which he was compelled to attend, after Minnick had previously made a specific request for counsel, it was impermissible. Pp. 150-156.

551 So.2d 77 (Miss.1988), reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post, p. ----. SOUTER, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Floyd Abrams, New York City, for petitioner.

Marvin L. White, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for respondent.

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

To protect the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, we have held that the police must terminate interrogation of an accused in custody if the accused requests the assistance of counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We reinforced the protections of Miranda in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), which held that once the accused requests counsel, officials may not reinitiate questioning "until counsel has been made available" to him. The issue in the case before us is whether Edwards' protection ceases once the suspect has consulted with an attorney.

Petitioner Robert Minnick and fellow prisoner James Dyess escaped from a county jail in Mississippi and, a day later, broke into a mobile home in search of weapons. In the course of the burglary they were interrupted by the arrival of the trailer's owner, Ellis Thomas, accompanied by Lamar Lafferty and Lafferty's infant son. Dyess and Minnick used the stolen weapons to kill Thomas and the senior Lafferty. Minnick's story is that Dyess murdered one victim and forced Minnick to shoot the other. Before the escapees could get away, two young women arrived at the mobile home. They were held at gunpoint, then bound hand and foot. Dyess and Minnick fled in Thomas' truck, abandoning the vehicle in New Orleans. The fugitives continued to Mexico, where they fought, and Minnick then proceeded alone to California. Minnick was arrested in Lemon Grove, California, on a Mississippi warrant, some four months after the murders.

The confession at issue here resulted from the last interrogation of Minnick while he was held in the San Diego jail, but we first recount the events which preceded it. Minnick was arrested on Friday, August 22, 1986. Petitioner testified that he was mistreated by local police during and after the arrest. The day following the arrest, Saturday, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents came to the jail to interview him. Petitioner testified that he refused to go to the interview, but was told he would "have to go down or else." App. 45. The FBI report indicates that the agents read petitioner his Miranda warnings, and that he acknowledged he understood his rights. He refused to sign a rights waiver form, however, and said he would not answer "very many" questions. Minnick told the agents about the jailbreak and the flight, and described how Dyess threatened and beat him. Early in the interview, he sobbed "[i]t was my life or theirs," but otherwise he hesitated to tell what happened at the trailer. The agents reminded him he did not have to answer questions without a lawyer present. According to the report, "Minnick stated 'Come back Monday when I have a law yer,' and stated that he would make a more complete statement then with his lawyer present." App. 16. The FBI interview ended.

After the FBI interview, an appointed attorney met with petitioner. Petitioner spoke with the lawyer on two or three occasions, though it is not clear from the record whether all of these conferences were in person.

On Monday, August 25, Deputy Sheriff J.C. Denham of Clarke County, Mississippi, came to the San Diego jail to question Minnick. Minnick testified that his jailers again told him he would "have to talk" to Denham and that he "could not refuse." Id., at 45. Denham advised petitioner of his rights, and petitioner again declined to sign a rights waiver form. Petitioner told Denham about the escape and then proceeded to describe the events at the mobile home. According to petitioner, Dyess jumped out of the mobile home and shot the first of the two victims, once in the back with a shotgun and once in the head with a pistol. Dyess then handed the pistol to petitioner and ordered him to shoot the other victim, holding the shotgun on petitioner until he did so. Petitioner also said that when the two girls arrived, he talked Dyess out of raping or otherwise hurting them.

Minnick was tried for murder in Mississippi. He moved to suppress all statements given to the FBI or other police officers, including Denham. The trial court denied the motion with respect to petitioner's statements to Denham, but suppressed his other statements. Petitioner was convicted on two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death.

On appeal, petitioner argued that the confession to Denham was taken in violation of his rights to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected the claims. With respect to the Fifth Amendment aspect of the case, the court found "the Edwards bright-line rule as to initiation" inapplicable. 551 So.2d 77, 83 (1988). Relying on language in Edwards indicating that the bar on interrogating the accused after a request for coun- sel applies " 'until counsel has been made available to him,' " ibid., quoting Edwards v. Arizona, supra, 451 U.S., at 484-485, 101 S.Ct., at 1885, the court concluded that "[s]ince counsel was made available to Minnick, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel was satisfied." 551 So.2d, at 83. The court also rejected the Sixth Amendment claim, finding that petitioner waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he spoke with Denham. Id., at 83-85. We granted certiorari, 495 U.S. 903, 110 S.Ct. 1921, 109 L.Ed.2d 285 (1990), and, without reaching any Sixth Amendment implications in the case, we decide that the Fifth Amendment protection of Edwards is not terminated or suspended by consultation with counsel.

In Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S., at 474, 86 S.Ct., at 1627, we indicated that once an individual in custody invokes his right to counsel, interrogation "must cease until an attorney is present"; at that point, "the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning." Edwards gave force to these admonitions, finding it "inconsistent with Miranda and its progeny for the authorities, at their instance, to reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his right to counsel." 451 U.S., at 485, 101 S.Ct., at 1885. We held that "when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
724 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 3 Enero 2022
    ...to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights.’ " ( Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) 498 U.S. 146, 150, 111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489.)On the day of the shooting in this case, Johnson was first approached by Detective Robert Young at 7:00 p.m......
  • State v. Purcell, SC 19980
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 29 Marzo 2019
    ...the right to counsel cannot be questioned regarding any offense unless an attorney is actually present. Minnick v. Mississippi , 498 U.S. 146 [111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489] (1990) ; Arizona v. Roberson , 486 U.S. 675 [108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704] (1988). It remains clear, however, tha......
  • Haynes v. State, No. 2005-KA-00722-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 8 Junio 2006
    ...exchanges, or conversations with the police." 451 U.S. at 484-45, 101 S.Ct. 1852; see also Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 156, 111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990); Kirkland v. State, 559 So.2d 1046, 1047 ¶ 17. In other words, once an accused has invoked his right to counsel, any st......
  • Boretsky v. Ricci, Civil No. 09-0771 (FLW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 29 Febrero 2012
    ...in which the Court has held the Edwards rule applicable, i.e., Edwards, Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, (1988), and Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990):Edwards was arrested pursuant to a warrant and taken to a police station, where he was interrogated until he requested counsel. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ...Form 3-D Michigan v. Lucas , 500 U.S. 145 (1991), §1:03 Minnesota v. Olson , 495 U.S. 91, 96 (1990), Form 3-D Minnick v. Mississippi , 498 U.S. 146 (1990), Forms 3-C, 4-A Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), §3:09, Forms 3-A, 3-C, 4-A Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533, 542 n. 3 (1......
  • "incorporation" of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: the View from the States
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 84, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...at time of custodial interrogation did not excuse officer's failure to provide Mirandawarnings); see also Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) (holding that after a suspect requests counsel and initial interrogation ends, officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel pre......
  • Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2016
    ...contact with the authorities. Murphy v. State, 801 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), citing Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 46, 111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990). This is true even where the accused has consulted with counsel in the interim. Murphy; Where a suspect has invoked his rig......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Street Legal. A Guide to Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for Police, Prosecutors, and Defenders
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...21, 72, 141, 154 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 112, 128 Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) 78 Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) 123 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 105-32 Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) 118 Mitchell v. Yeadon Borough, 2002 WL 265021......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT