Washington – The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.
That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 1986 decision, said that, contrary to the majority’s assertion, that decision protected “a fundamental right that the court now dishonors.”
The ruling Tuesday was in the case of Jesse Montejo, who was sentenced to death for the murder and robbery of Lewis Ferrari in September 2002. Mr. Montejo was arrested a day after Mr. Ferrari was found dead in his Slidell, La., home. Suspicion focused on Mr. Montejo because he was known to associate with a disgruntled former employee of Mr. Ferrari’s dry-cleaning business.
Mr. Montejo was read his Miranda rights, arising from the landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling that a defendant must be told of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present virtually from the moment he is taken into custody. Under questioning, Mr. Montejo repeatedly changed his story, at first blaming the former employee, then admitting that he had shot the victim during a botched burglary.
At a preliminary hearing, a judge ordered that a public defender be appointed. The timing is in dispute, but at some point Mr. Montejo was read his Miranda rights again and agreed to accompany detectives to locate the murder weapon, which he had indicated that he had thrown into a lake.
During the trip, he wrote a letter of apology to the victim’s widow, using paper and pen provided by the detectives. Only upon his return did Mr. Montejo meet with his lawyer, who was furious that his client had been questioned in his absence, and was further incensed when the letter was admitted as evidence at trial.
Mr. Montejo’s conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which reasoned in part that the protections of the 1986 Michigan case should not apply to him because, in Louisiana as in many other states, lawyers are assigned automatically to indigent defendants, removing any question of whether Mr. Montejo specifically “requested” counsel at his arraignment.
Tuesday’s ruling was not a total defeat for Mr. Montejo, as the majority sent the case back to the state court, saying he should be allowed to pursue other grounds on which to have the incriminating letter suppressed. Further, the justices suggested, the police as well as the defendant gave inconsistent testimony, and those differences may have to be sorted out by the state court.
The Obama administration, in a stance that disappointed some of its liberal backers, had argued in favor of overturning the 1986 ruling in the Michigan case, as had 11 states who told the high court that that case was no longer relevant.
Tuesday’s opinion in Montejo v. Louisiana, No. 07-1529, inspired considerable emotion, as displayed by Justice Stevens’s reading of his dissent, which was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Tuesday’s ruling damaged Mr. Montejo’s Sixth Amendment right to legal representation, as well as his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, Justice Stevens said.
“Such a decision can only diminish the public’s confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice,” he said.
This is an incredibe violation of constitutional rights and the principle that a court should not deviate from prior decisions except for unusual circumstances. The right to counsel if sacred and today’s decision trashes that right. Fortunately, there are reinforcements on their way and with Obama’s new appointments, this decision will be reversed soon. It might take another appointment since we will need another liberal judge on the court to have a majority of five votes to restore the 1986 decision.
As it notes above, the Obama Administration was in favor of overturning Montejo. Don’t count on reversal by a new court. Scalia’s logic is unassailable.
I agree with your comment. And I’m actually really surprised about this “lifting restrictions on interrogations”. It’s well-known that self-representation is not advisable, and that you should always have a lawyer representing you. I think that lifting these restrictions on questioning suspects would make it easier for police to unfairly engage in activities that would help them make stronger cases against suspects who may actually be completely innocent.
A legal system that requires you to know every detail of tax law or be found guilty – ignorance is no defense, doesn’t expect you to know what your rights are and allow you to be an adult and ask for your lawyer if you want one?
To quote a famous bumper sticker – its not a good idea, it’s just the law.
It doesn’t take away “Right to counsel”. A suspect can be questioned without an attorney present, he is still read his Miranda.
The notion that the right to counsel has been compromised is silly. All he had to do was say “I want to talk to my lawyer” or “I am not discussing this with you until my lawyer gets here” and then the police would have to stop asking him questions (or risk suppression of any evidence they gathered.) And this was after he had been read his Miranda rights — including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, including appointed counsel for the indigent. Yet he chose to talk to waive his rights, talk to the police, and lead them to the murder weapon and a letter of apology admitting the murder.
Hard to lose sleep over this one.
The Judge invoked the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel and appointed the public defender. According the reasoning of the Court, if a judge automatically appointed counsel to an indigent defendant (which happens in many states), the defendant would then need to say “I want a lawyer” to be protected from further police interrogation. The exchange would be ridiculous: Judge – “I appoint the public defender,” Defendant – “I want a lawyer,” Judge – “I just gave you a lawyer!” Once a defendant is represented by counsel neither the police nor the prosecutor may have any discussions with the defendant outside the presence of his lawyer. Montejo is an unsympathetic character, but we all suffer when our constitutional rights are taken away. Conservatives often talk about legislating from the bench. But here we have conservative justices ignoring precedent in order to conform the law with their political agenda. This is a very troubling decision.