Davis v. United States (1994)

Davis v. United States

Argued March 29, 1994
Decided June 24, 1994
Full case name Davis v. United States
Citations

512 U.S. 452 (more)

Holding
The rule in Edwards v. Arizonais an objective inquiry, requiring some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for an attorney’s assistance. However, if a reference is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, Edwards' does not require that officers stop questioning the suspect.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
Majority O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence Scalia
Concurrence Souter, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel."[1]

Background

Davis, a member of the United States Navy, murdered another sailor when the victim refused to pay a $30 debt that was incurred by losing a game of pool. The victim was beaten to death with a pool cue. Only personally-owned pool cues could be taken from the pool hall and Davis owned two pool cues. Naval investigators found blood on Davis's pool cue and several people stated that they had heard Davis confess to the murder. Davis was taken into custody by Naval investigators and read his rights under Miranda. Davis confessed during the interrogation and then made an ambiguous request for an attorney by saying, "Maybe I should talk with an attorney." The investigators asked him if he did want one and he said, "No."

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled that an ambiguous and unclear request for an attorney does not establish the right.

The reasoning was that the defendant's rights under Edwards were not sufficiently requested under these facts. The request for an attorney must be clear and unambiguous.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Harr, J. Scott; Kären M. Hess (2007). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-495-09543-9.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.