Facts
- Robert S. Minnick escaped from a Mississippi jail with another prisoner; during the escape, two adults in a mobile home were killed and other occupants were restrained.
- Minnick was later arrested in California on a Mississippi warrant for capital murder.
- While in California custody, FBI agents advised Minnick of his Miranda rights; Minnick refused to sign a waiver and stated he would not talk until he consulted a lawyer.
- Counsel was appointed, and Minnick met with the attorney several times over the next few days.
- A Mississippi deputy sheriff later initiated questioning at the San Diego jail without counsel present; jail officials told Minnick he could not refuse to talk.
- After renewed Miranda warnings, Minnick again refused to sign a waiver but gave an incriminating statement.
- At his Mississippi capital murder trial, the statement was admitted over Minnick’s motion to suppress; he was convicted and sentenced to death.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Edwards was satisfied because Minnick had consulted counsel before the deputy’s interview.
Issues
- After a suspect in custody invokes the Fifth Amendment/Miranda right to counsel, does Edwards permit police-initiated interrogation following the suspect’s consultation with counsel, even if counsel is not present during the renewed questioning?
- What does it mean under Edwards for counsel to have been “made available” to the accused?
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that once a suspect requests counsel, interrogation must cease and officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present, even if the suspect previously consulted an attorney.
- Because the deputy initiated custodial questioning without counsel present and Minnick did not initiate the contact, the confession should have been suppressed.
Legal Principles
- Under Edwards, after a custodial suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not conduct further interrogation unless counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication and validly waives the right.
- “Counsel has been made available” means counsel’s presence at custodial interrogation, not merely an earlier opportunity to consult outside the interrogation setting.
- Prior consultation does not eliminate the coercive pressure of custody; a clear, administrable rule is required to protect the invoked right to counsel.
Conclusion
The Court ruled that a suspect’s prior consultation with an attorney does not permit police to restart custodial interrogation; once counsel is requested, police-initiated questioning is barred unless counsel is present or the suspect initiates further discussion and waives the right.