## Facts

- Raymond Levi Cobb was arrested in 1994 on an unrelated matter and confessed to burglarizing a home while denying knowledge of a missing woman and child from that residence.
- Cobb was indicted for burglary, and counsel was appointed for him on that charge.
- In 1995, Cobb told his father he had killed the missing woman and child; the father notified police.
- While in custody, Cobb received Miranda warnings, waived his rights, and confessed to the murders.
- Cobb was indicted for capital murder, convicted in Texas state court, and sentenced to death.
- On appeal, Cobb sought suppression of the murder confession, arguing his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached through the burglary indictment and appointment of counsel.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the right to counsel for the charged offense extended to other offenses that were very closely related factually.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, once attached to a charged offense, bars police-initiated interrogation about uncharged crimes that are factually related to the charged offense without counsel present.
2. How to define “offense” for Sixth Amendment offense-specificity, including whether the Blockburger elements test governs.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not extend merely because uncharged crimes are factually related to the charged offense.
- Applying the Blockburger elements test, the Court treated burglary and capital murder as separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes.
- Because Cobb received and waived Miranda rights, police could interrogate him about the murders despite counsel having been appointed on the burglary charge.
- Cobb’s confession to the murders was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings for a particular charged offense and is limited to that offense.
- “Offense” for Sixth Amendment purposes is defined by the Blockburger elements test: two crimes are separate offenses if each requires proof of a fact the other does not.
- Police are not barred by the Sixth Amendment from initiating questioning about uncharged offenses that are separate under Blockburger, even if they arise from the same factual episode as a charged offense.
- Miranda warnings and a valid waiver remain the governing safeguards for custodial interrogation about uncharged offenses when the Sixth Amendment has attached only to different, charged offenses.

## Conclusion

The Court held that appointment of counsel on a burglary charge did not prevent police, after Miranda warnings and waiver, from interrogating the defendant about factually related murders because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and the crimes were separate under Blockburger.


Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001)