'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer': ambiguous invocations of Miranda; Supreme Court review.
An analysis of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Davis v. United States, in which the Court took up “ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during custodial interrogation.” With regard to a suspect's right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, whereby interrogation must cease until an at...
| Publicado en: | Trial: The National Legal Newsmagazine Vol. 30; p. 90 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
American Association for Justice (AJJ)
September 1994
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | An analysis of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Davis v. United States, in which the Court took up “ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during custodial interrogation.” With regard to a suspect's right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, whereby interrogation must cease until an attorney is present if the suspect requests an attorney, a majority in the Court imposed on the suspect, rather than on the questioning officers, the burden of clarifying whether an attorney has been requested. The reasons why this ruling could be regarded as questionable are outlined. |
|---|