Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings — unequivocal request

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings — unequivocal request

Where a suspect said, in response to a request whether he would be interested in providing a written statement, “I’d rather talk to an attorney first before I do that,” the suspect failed to unequivocally invoke his right to counsel.

“Martin’s statement is unambiguous in light of the circumstances and is clearly limited to written statements. This case differs from those cases described in Barrett requiring a court to give ‘broad effect to requests for counsel that were less than all-inclusive.’ 479 U.S. at 529 (citing Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1041-42 (1983) (‘I do want an attorney before it goes very much further.’); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 479 (‘I want an attorney before making a deal.’)). Here, Deputy Morath clearly asked Martin if he would provide a written statement. In response, Martin invoked his right to counsel ‘before I do that.’ His request for counsel was unambiguous and the phrase ‘before I do that’ operates as a clear limitation of that request. ‘To conclude that [Martin] invoked his right to counsel for all purposes requires not a broad interpretation of an ambiguous statement, but a disregard of the ordinary meaning of [Martin’s] statement.’ Id. at 529-30.”

Affirmed.

11-1696 U.S. v. Martin

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Mihm, J., Kanne, J.