 The following case studies were produced to illustrate legal principles involving the fifth and sixth amendments. The interviewing techniques and uniforms worn by the actors do not necessarily reflect those in the actual cases, nor do they necessarily reflect interviewing techniques or uniform appearance recommended by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. While investigating a theft which had occurred at a residence, a police officer asked the victim if she suspected any one of the burglary. She replied that the only person she could possibly think of was Mr. Carl Ray Mathiason, a parolee from a nearby prison. In the weeks that followed, no additional evidence was uncovered regarding the burglary. In addition, the investigating officer was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Mr. Mathiason for questioning. Finally, approximately 25 days after the burglary, he went to Mr. Mathiason's apartment and after failing to contact him there, left his business card and a note stating that he would like to discuss something with him. The next day, Mathiason called the officer and an appointment was set for the following afternoon. Excuse me, I have an appointment to see Trooper LeRon Howlin. Okay. Detective Howlin, you have a visitor. Okay, thanks. I'll be right with you. Oh, my baby. Carl Mathiason. Yeah, that's me. I'm Detective Howlin. You're right on time. Thanks for coming in. I just want to ask you a couple of questions. Step back to my office, please. Come on in, Carl. Please, have a seat. Sit down and relax. I just wanted to ask you a couple of quick questions about a burglary a while back. Burglary? What are you talking about? I don't know anything about a burglary. I didn't say that you did, Carl. You're not under arrest or anything. I just want to ask you some questions. What about? About a burglary that happened at 24th and Shore Drive on the 16th of last month. Do you know anything about it? I told you, I don't know anything about a burglary. Listen, officer, I'm trying to go straight. This whole thing could mess up my parole. Look, Carl, all I want from you is the truth. You give me the truth and I'll tell the DA that you're cooperating. What do you mean the DA? I haven't done anything. Let's get one thing straight, pal. I know that you did it. I've got your fingerprints to prove it. What are you talking about? Talking about how stupid you are, Carl. You left your prints all over the house. Look, I'm telling you this for your own good. You come clean with me and I'll see what I can do with the DA for you. Yeah, I took the stuff. Alright, so what can you do for me? Are you ready to make a confession? Yeah, I guess I am. Alright. Let's start at the beginning. The investigating officer was able to obtain a full confession on tape from Mr. Mathiason. At the conclusion of the interview, Mr. Mathiason was released without arrest and the taped confession was sent on to the district attorney for further action. The ensuing investigation revealed that the confession had been made as a result of false statements made by the investigating officer regarding the presence of Mr. Mathiason's fingerprints at the scene of the crime. In fact, no fingerprints or any other incriminating evidence had been found. Accordingly, at his trial, Mr. Mathiason's defense was based on the fact that his Miranda rights had been violated. What would you decide? Our decision in Miranda set forth rules to police procedure applicable to custodial interrogation. With custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In the case of Mr. Mathiason, there is no indication that the questioning took place in a context where his freedom to depart was restricted. He came voluntarily to the police station where he was immediately informed that he was not under arrest. He was allowed to leave the station at the conclusion of his half-hour interview. It's clear from these facts that he was not in custody or his freedom deprived significantly. The fact the interview took place in a coercive atmosphere within itself does not convert a non-custodial situation to one of custody. Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects because the officer is part of a system which may cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. The officer's false statement regarding the defendant's fingerprints may have contributed to the coercive atmosphere but is not relevant to the issue regarding the Miranda rule. I can't believe this. Unit 530, pull me out for a DWI. What do I do now? This guy is busted. Sir, I'm Officer Williams. May I see your registration and driver's license, please? Officer, is there something wrong? Mr. McCarty, have you been consuming any intoxicating liquor or drugs this evening? Well, I may have a few beers. Is that all? Well, a friend of mine had some marijuana, though. I might have tried a little of that, too. Please step out of the car, sir. Go, Officer. I'd like no one to be stopped, but I wasn't speeding or anything. You were driving very erratically back there, Mr. McCarty. And I'm going to ask you to perform a few tests. Do you understand? Yes, I understand. Please step to the rear of the car with me. Place your heels together. Extend your arms out from your sides. Tilt your head back slightly. Close your eyes. Now take your right forefinger. Touch your nose. Now do the same with your left forefinger. Try it again. Your right forefinger. Touch your nose. Now your left. All right, Mr. McCarty, I want you to put your arms down and open your eyes. At this time, I'd like you to turn around and place your hands on top of your head. You're under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Mr. McCarty was arrested and tried for driving while intoxicated. However, during the trial, it was revealed that the arresting officer had made up his mind to arrest the suspect even before he talked to him. Given the fact that the suspect indeed was intoxicated, but the decision to arrest him came before the questioning. What would you decide? Was he entitled to the Miranda warnings? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although the police officer apparently decided as soon as the operator stepped out of his car that he would be taken into custody and charged with the traffic offense, the officer never communicated his intention to the operator. A police officer's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was in custody at a particular time. The only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation. Nor do other aspects of the interaction of the operator of the automobile support the contention that he was exposed to custodial interrogation at the scene of the traffic stop. A police officer is asking a modest number of questions and requesting the individual to perform a simple balancing test at a location visible to passing motorists should not be characterized as a formal arrest. It was a compulsive aspect of custodial interrogation and not the strength or content of the government's suspicions at the time the questioning was conducted, which led the court to impose the Miranda requirements with regard to custodial interrogation. However, once the arrest occurred, the Miranda warnings and the course of valid waiver would be necessary prior to asking the individual any further incriminating questions. In its Miranda opinion, the court concluded that in the context of custodial interrogation, certain procedural safeguards are necessary to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. More specifically, the court held its Miranda decision that the prosecution may not use statements from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The court went on to say that once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until the attorney is present. In the case we're about to dramatize, we're asked to address the meaning of interrogation with respect to the term functional equivalent of interrogation. The police were investigating a robbery homicide of a cab driver in which the victim had been killed by an assailant with a shotgun. A few days later, a cab driver arrived at a police station and reported that he had just been robbed by an individual who had brandished a shotgun. The cab driver was shown a book of mug shots and he identified the robber as an individual named Ennis. The police dispatcher radioed a lookout for Ennis and a short time later he was identified and arrested by a patrol officer. Other officers, including the precinct captain, were quick to arrive at the scene. Hi, Captain. Good work, Lovell. Did he give you any trouble? No, Captain. Just a little argument, Saul. Was he on? No, sir. He wasn't. I haven't had a chance to check the area yet, but he was clean when I picked him up. McKenna, watch it. Beckman, Williams, sweep the area for weapons and get your pants dirty. I want to find that shotgun. Have you read him his rights yet? Yes, sir. First thing. Sergeant Sears did, too. Did he say anything? Not a word. I told him what the charge was. He shut up like a clam. We'll just cover our bases. We'd better morandize them the second time, but both of you have witnesses. Get him out of the car. Okay, Ennis. Captain's got a few words for you. Mr. Ennis, I'm Captain Layton of the Fourth Precinct. You're under arrest for robbery and murder. Before we go any further, I want to read your Miranda rights, just in case you didn't understand them before. You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say may be held against you in the court of law. You have a right to an attorney. Jesus, that stuff is thick. You've come up with anything, Williams? Nah, we'll never find that gun in this stuff. We don't even know which way it was coming from yet. It doesn't look like we're going to find out today, either. I don't think our boy is very willing to talk. Until he sees his lawyer anyway. Let's head over there. Do you understand your rights as I've read them to you? Yeah. Do you wish to make a statement? No, I told them I wanted to see an attorney first. A level, stick around for a couple of minutes. I want to go over some of the details before we head back in. Clecklin, you and McKenna escort Mr. Ennis here back to the station. And fellas, he doesn't want to say anything until he's seen an attorney, so no questions. I want this done by the book. You got it, Captain. Let's go, Ennis. You know, McKenna, I patrol this area a lot. There's a school for handicapped kids right over there in that next block. One of those kids might find that shotgun in shells and maybe hurt themselves. You're right. That's a safety factor I hadn't even considered. Come to think of it, I'd feel a lot better if after we drop this guy off, we'll come back through here and see if we can't find it today. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. We might get lucky, you know? Some little girl can find that gun and maybe kill herself. Hey, listen, man, I know where it is. I don't want to hurt any little kids. Just turn around and go back up Broadway. I'll show you where it's at. You sure about this, Ennis? Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. Turn this vehicle around. Okay? In the trial following Mr. Ennis' arrest, he was convicted of kidnapping, robbery, and murder. Based partially on the statements he made, the night he was arrested and the shotgun that was recovered the same night. The Rhode Island Supreme Court, on appeal, set aside the conviction and held that Ennis was entitled to a new trial, concluding Ennis had invoked his Miranda right to counsel and that the police in the vehicle had interrogated him without a valid waiver. The case was subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court. What would you decide? The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to address the meaning of interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona. The court vacated the opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court and remanded it back to the state. In doing so, the court held that interrogation under Miranda refers not only to expressed questioning, but also to any words or action on the part of the police that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response. In this case, however, the court held that Ennis had not been subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation since the police had no way of knowing that their comments would have evoked a response from Ennis. In December of 1981, the home of Gilbert Gross in Salem, Oregon was burglarized, $150,000 worth of art objects and other valuable belongings were taken. A witness to the burglary reported to the local sheriff's office that Michael Elstad, a neighbor and friend of the gross's son, was involved in the crime. On the strength of this evidence, two officers were dispatched to the Elstad's home with a warrant for 18-year-old Michael Elstad's arrest. During the ensuing trial, Officer Burke, one of the arresting officers, testified as to what happened that night. Yes, both Officer McAllister and myself arrived at the Elstad residence at about 8 p.m. Did you have a warrant for his arrest at that time? Yes, we did. Can you tell us in your own words what happened after you arrived? Well, like I said, we got there about 8 o'clock. Mrs. Elstad, Michael's mother, answered the door. We asked if we could speak to Michael. So she brought us back to his room where he was listening to the stereo. Then my partner took Mrs. Elstad into the kitchen to explain what was happening to her, and I took Michael on out into the living room. And what happened there? Well, we sat down. I asked Mr. Elstad if he knew why we were there. He said, no, he didn't have any idea. Then I asked him if he knew somebody by the name of Gross. He said, sure he did. Tom Gross is a good friend of mine, he says, and he lives right next door. Then he said he had heard that there had been a robbery over at the Gross Place. And what did you say? Well, I looked at him and I told him I thought he might be involved in the robbery. And what did Mr. Elstad say to that? He looked right back at me and said, yes, I was there. Are you absolutely sure those were his exact words? Absolutely sure. What happened next? Well, about that time my partner comes out of the kitchen with Mrs. Elstad. So I told the boy he was under arrest and we both escorted him out to the police car. Well, about that time Mr. Elstad, the father shows up and he was real upset. What exactly did Mr. Elstad's father do? Well, we were just about to drive off and he came running up to the car. His wife tried to stop him, but he wasn't having any of it. He comes right up to the car, opens the rear door where his son is sitting, waves his fist in his face and said, I told you that you would get into trouble. But no, he says, you wouldn't listen to me. You'll never learn. He was real upset. Well, his wife finally got a hold of him and we were able to get on out of there without any more delay. And you went directly to the sheriff's station? Yes, we did. After he had been processed through Officer McAllister and I met up with him again, Officer McAllister read him his Miranda rights and asked him if he wanted to make a statement. Was that the first time that Mr. Elstad had been given his Miranda rights? To my knowledge, yes it was. Neither you nor the other officer gave him his Miranda rights at his home or on the way down to the station. No, sir, we did not. After Officer McAllister did read him his Miranda rights and asked him if he wanted to make a statement, what did Mr. Elstad say? He said he understood his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, but that he would just as soon tell us the story right then. And he did so? Yes, he did. He said he knew some people who had paid him some money on how to get into the gross's home. He said he and the others had slipped in through a faulty sliding glass door. During Mr. Elstad's trial, the state conceded that Elstad was already in custody at the time he was initially questioned in his home and that no Miranda warning had been issued prior to the questioning. However, the state argued that even though Elstad had confessed to the crime during his first interview without being apprised of his rights, he had again confessed during the second interview after he had received the Miranda warning. Accordingly, the state argued that Mr. Elstad's second confession had been made within the scope of the law and should therefore be considered valid. What would you decide? The case was eventually heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Mr. Elstad. In finding for the state, the court ruled that Mr. Elstad's contention that his confession was tainted by the earlier failure of the police to provide Miranda warnings assumed the existence of a constitutional violation. In part, the court's opinion read it is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect's ability to exercise his free will. So taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period. On January 19, 1976, Robert Edwards was arrested in Arizona for robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder. Upon his arrest, he was transported to the police station and detained in a holding cell. A police officer assigned to the investigation was subsequently detailed to meet with Edwards, Miranda is him, and obtain any information relevant to the crime. If having been advised of his rights, he agreed to cooperate. Do you understand your rights as I have read them to you? I understand. Do you wish to waive those rights? What do you mean, do I wish to waive my rights? All right, I'm asking if I can ask you some questions without your lawyer being here to advise you. Sure, if our way. What can you tell me about a man named Sean Waverly? Nothing. You've never heard this name before? No, sir. Sean Waverly was murdered last Tuesday night. He was murdered and his house was burglarized. Yeah, well, I'm real sorry to hear about that. Well, where were you last Tuesday night, Edwards? Around 11.30 p.m. At home, in bed, and no, I don't have anybody that can verify that. Listen, I can see you're trying to stick me with this murder. But you're wrong, man. I wasn't there. Edwards, I want you to listen to me very carefully. You wouldn't be sitting here in this cell right now if we didn't have some pretty reliable evidence linking you to the crime. You can sit there and deny it to me, and later on deny it to the judge and the jury. The facts are the facts, Edwards, and I think we've got you cold. You might as well know it now. Your accomplice has already done his share of talking. Yeah, well, what if I was willing to cooperate? You tell me. Look, I just don't know. If he might think that his case is tight enough, he doesn't even need your cooperation. I want a deal. You give me a deal. I might be willing to tell my story. Look, I don't have that kind of authority. What I can tell you is that if you start telling me the truth right now, I'll do whatever I came with the DA. No way, man. No way. I ain't that stupid. Look, I want to see a lawyer. I don't talk to you or anybody else until I see a lawyer. Have it your way, Edwards. Just remember what I told you. The facts are the facts. Gordon, take him on back. He's got some thinking to do. Come on. Okay, Edwards, let's go. You've got some visitors. Yeah, who are they? A couple of detectives. Come on, I don't have all day. Look, I told the damn detective yesterday. I don't talk to anybody unless it's my lawyer. When do I see him? Listen, Edwards, I don't make the rules. I just follow them. Get up off your ass and let's go. You bleed as shit, JT. In the second interview with Investigating Detectives, Mr. Edwards was again read his Miranda rights, and after some persuasion, waved his rights and agreed to talk. It was during the course of the second interview that he confessed to the crimes. In the subsequent trial, Mr. Edwards was convicted of robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder. He appealed the decision, basing his defense on the argument that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated, in that after he had been mirandized and had requested the advice of counsel, investigating officers continued to coerce information from him before allowing him to see an attorney. The state argued that after receiving his rights the second time, Mr. Edwards waved those rights and therefore his confession should be valid. What would you decide? Mr. Edwards' appeal was eventually heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, who in reversing the decision of the lower court held that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation, even after being further advised of his rights. The court further held that an accused, such as Mr. Edwards, expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel is made available to him, unless the accused himself initiated further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. In 1986, Mr. James Bradshaw was picked up for questioning by the Oregon State Police in connection with the death of Thomas Reynolds, a youth whose body had been discovered in the passenger compartment of his pickup truck. Initial investigations indicated that the boy had died of internal injuries, sustained when the truck left the road at a high rate of speed and struck a tree. There was also evidence that the accident had been alcohol-related. After his initial questioning, Mr. Bradshaw was advised of his Miranda rights, but gave a waiver to the investigating officers. He admitted that he had provided liquor to Reynolds, but denied any involvement in the accident that had killed him. As a result of Mr. Bradshaw's statements, he was arrested for furnishing alcohol to a miter and re-advised of his rights. Do you understand your rights? Yeah, I understand them. I told you last time. I'm just doing it by the book, Bradshaw. I want to make sure you understand all your options. Now, do you waive your rights? Look, Severs, what is this? I already told you what happened. Well, Jimmy, you want to know what I think? It's Jim. Jimmy, I think you're lying. No, I ain't lying? I swear to God I ain't lying. We were out partying, we bought some beers on the way home as all. When we got to my house, we started drinking. I got really messed up, man. I must have passed out or something. I just don't remember nothing. He must have taken my truck while I was asleep. I swear that's a truth. Yeah, well, maybe you downed a few brews on the way home, Bradshaw. And just maybe you were messed up before you even got there. And just maybe you were driving that truck, going like a bat out of hell when you missed that curb and barreled into the tree. And maybe you just snuck off on home and left Tommy to die out there in the weeds. No, I'm telling you we were at home drinking in the backyard. You're a liar, Bradshaw. Yeah? Well, I'm not saying anymore until I see a lawyer. Well, that's your right, Jimmy. But for tonight, I'm booking you into the county jail. You can make arrangements for an attorney over there. Take this guy on down to county and take Officer Hayes with you, too, okay? Sure. Bradshaw, let's go. I thought you said this was going to be a short trip. Man, these cuffs are killing my hands. How much further do we have to go? Keep your shirt on, Bradshaw. We've got another 15 miles yet. So, uh, what happens to me now? Listen, Bradshaw, I don't know much about your case. But what I do know is that you've asked for legal counsel. Because of that, I don't want to talk to you unless you yourself want to say something of your own free will. Jeez, man, give me a break. Can't you even tell me where I'm going or what's going to happen to me? Well, for tonight, you're going to be a guest to the county. I don't know. What is it you're charged with? Right now, I guess it's giving liquor to a minor. That Severs has got some crazy ideas. He says that I was driving. And I know he's going to try to pin Reynolds' accident on me. So you're saying you had nothing to do with the accident? Man, I didn't even know the kid had taken my truck. I was so messed up. That son of a bitch, Severs, says that I'm lying. Says that I'm trying to cover up something. I don't know if you really didn't have anything to do with it. I know some way you could convince him if you were willing. Suck up, my officer. I'm telling the truth. So what could I do? You could take a polygraph exam. You know, lie detector. Of course, those things aren't totally infallible, but he'd certainly help the case if you passed it. Sort of, I... Where would I take this lie detector? Now, when you get in touch with your lawyer, just let him know what you want to do, and I'm sure he'll be able to take care of it. Yeah. I could do that. I'm telling the truth, and that machine will prove it. The day after his initial interview with Officer Severs, Bradshaw requested and was administered a polygraph examination. As is the practice with all examinations, he was again advised of his Miranda rights before the questioning began. At the conclusion of the test, the examiner determined that Mr. Bradshaw was lying, and that he had indeed been involved in the wreck of his truck. After learning of these results, Bradshaw recanted his story and admitted that he had been driving the truck and that he had been drunk and had passed out at the wheel. Bradshaw was subsequently charged with and convicted of manslaughter, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and driving with a revoked license. Appealing the decision of the lower court, Bradshaw moved to have the incriminating statements he made as a result of the polygraph examination suppressed, relying on the decision in Edwards v. Arizona, which protects the accused from police-initiated interrogation without the advice of counsel once that request for counsel has been made. What would you decide? The U.S. Supreme Court held it by asking, well, what's going to happen to me now? Bradshaw had initiated conversation and shown a willingness to discuss the investigation in a general sense. Therefore, Bradshaw's claim that during his transfer to the county jail, he had been subjected to police-initiated interrogation without his requested advice of counsel was invalid. In addressing the inquiry as to whether there was a valid waiver of the right to counsel, the court further held that finding no evidence of any police threats, promises, or inducements nor any other reason to think Mr. Bradshaw's actions were not a valid, knowing, and intelligent waiver. The statements to the polygraph examiner were admissible. On Christmas Eve, a 10-year-old girl went to a sporting event with her parents. When she failed to return from a trip to the bathroom, a search for her began, which was unsuccessful. After a brief investigation, the police focused on an individual named Robert Williams and an arrest warrant was issued for abduction. Williams turned himself into police in a town about 160 miles from Des Moines, Iowa, the town in which the abduction had occurred. He was taken in front of a local judge and had an initial appearance. He was given his Miranda rights and evoked the right to counsel. A detective and another officer from Des Moines were subsequently detailed to pick Williams up where he was arrested and take him back. Before being transported back to Des Moines, he was once again read his Miranda rights. Do you understand your rights as a resident to you, Mr. Williams? Yeah, I understand them. I've heard them before. Yes, Mr. Williams, I'm sure you have. We both know you're being represented by Mr. McKnight, and I want you to remember that because we'll be visiting on the way from here to Des Moines. What do you mean, visiting? It's a long ride, Robert. I'm sure we'll be talking to each other along the way. I just wanted to be sure that you were aware of your rights. Look, McKnight's going to be meeting me when we get to Des Moines. After I see him, I'll give you the whole story. Until I see him, I don't want to say anything. All right? You have that right, Mr. Williams. We won't deprive you of it. Mr. Williams, I understand you're a good Christian. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. Don't you have a congregation of your own? I've heard folks call you Reverend. Yes, I believe in the teachings of the Lord. He is called from me to pass on His word. And yes, I have a small flock, a small flock of faithful worshipers. And together we praise His name. Do you believe in the teachings of the Bible? The Bible is the word of the Lord. And in it, you shall find truth and salvation. Reverend, what does the Bible say about life after death? The Bible teaches that if you hear the word of the Lord and you accept Him as your Savior, you will enjoy life everlasting. Have you accepted Him as your Savior? Reverend, I believe in God. And I believe in the truth of the Bible. I believe in the life after death. And I believe that everyone has a right to a Christian burial so they can go on and be with the Lord in the hereafter. Do you believe that, Reverend? Yes, I believe that. Do you believe that this missing little girl has the right to be with God? Yes. Reverend, I just want to give you something to think about as we travel down the road. Number one, I want you to observe the weather conditions. It's raining, it's sleeting, it's freezing. Driving is very treacherous and visibility is poor. And it's going to get dark early this evening. We're predicting several inches of snow for tonight. Now, I believe that you yourself are the only one who knows where this little girl's body is. I believe that you yourself have only been there once. And if you get snow on top of it, I believe you yourself may not be able to find it. Now, since we're going right by this area on the way to Des Moines, I feel we should stop and locate the body. And I also believe that the parents of this little girl have a right to a Christian burial for the little girl who was kidnapped and murdered on Christmas Eve. And I feel we should stop and locate it on the way rather than coming back in the morning after a snowstorm and possibly not being able to find it at all. What makes you think? What? What makes you think the little girl's near here? Now, you stop, Reverend. Don't you say anything more? I don't want to discuss it any further. I just want you to think about it as we travel down the river. The body's out by the old warship bridge. All right, Reverend. Steve, make a right on Highway 42. Let's go locate this little girl. You got it. Williams was indicted and found guilty of murder. He appealed to the state's Supreme Court, and that court did not disturb the conviction. Williams subsequently appealed in federal court and later to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. What would you decide? The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction and stated in relevant part that despite Williams' express and implicit assertion of his rights to counsel, the officer proceeded to elicit incriminating statements from him. The officer did not preface his efforts by telling Williams that he had a right to the presence of a lawyer and made no effort at all to ascertain whether Williams wished to relinquish that right. Based upon the circumstances in this case, said the court, Williams could not waive his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment without notice to his attorney. Criminal investigations. Evan Holden speaking. Evan, this is Roberta. How are you doing? Hey, Robbie, how are things over at the U.S. Attorney's Office? I've seen worse days out. Hey, the grand jury concluded proceedings on Walter High Tower. We got the indictment. You're kidding. Didn't take them long. Take over some of the details of this thing. There are some things I want to clear up. Sure. How about after lunch? Say around two o'clock? Sounds fine. And, Ev, bring your files with you, okay? Sure thing, Robbie. I'll see you too. I think he's still parking the car. Holden, what a coincidence meeting you here. Do you come in here often? When I get a chance to take a little lunch. Excuse me, Bill, go find our table. I'll be with you in a moment. How are you, Mr. High Tower? Pretty good, I guess. You know, I haven't heard from you in quite a while. See, has anything been decided yet on my case? I'm afraid so, Walter. I just heard this morning from the U.S. Attorney. The grand jury returned an indictment. What's gonna happen? What am I gonna do? Take it easy, Mr. High Tower. It's still a long way to go on this thing. Am I gonna go to jail? That's not for me to decide. The U.S. Attorney will contact you with the formal charges, then you'll be scheduled for trial. If you're found guilty, your sentence will be decided by the court. What do you think, Mr. Holden? I mean, what are my chances? I don't want to go to jail. I really can't say. But like I said, that's still a long way off. Listen, I'll do what I can for you, and I can't promise anything. In the meantime, would you mind answering a few more questions so I can straighten some things out? We'll be discussing your case this afternoon. Now? Here? Well, I guess so. Do you want a cup of coffee or something? No, thank you, Walter. I'll only take a few moments of your time. To the best of your recollection, how many trips for business purposes did you make to Geneva in 1988? Well, I don't know. You don't... Oh, my records are at the office. Oh, five to six, I guess. In the scenario you have just seen, a chance meeting occurs between an IRS agent and a citizen who the agent has been investigating for bank fraud. In fact, as a result of this ongoing investigation, a grand jury has just returned an indictment against the individual, knowing there's still some loose ends to be straightened out, and knowing that he is meeting with the U.S. attorney in the afternoon. The agent takes advantage of the chance meeting at the restaurant to ask a few more questions. Would the evidence uncovered as a result of the questioning be admissible in court? Although the dramatization you just viewed is not based on any specific case, in Patterson v. the State of Illinois, the United States Supreme Court held that following an indictment the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel at post-indictment questioning can generally be waived by the waiver to counsel, pursuant to the Miranda Warning. In the case of our Mr. Hightower, his Sixth Amendment rights were clearly violated. In November 1982, Billy Henry was arrested and subsequently indicted in Norfolk, Virginia for bank robbery. He was being held in Norfolk City Jail when Charles Nichols, a paid informant for the FBI, staying in the same cell block as Henry, was instructed to elicit information from Henry concerning the robbery. As is commonly the case in circumstances such as these, Nichols was to receive no money from the FBI unless he was able to uncover positive, useful information from Henry. The laundry. And if the laundry I get to stir up, it's brand new. But the thing is, the guy at the laundry also wants more parts of soap. He has a bit over a bit of it wrong. Hey, baby. Hey, Billy, how you doing, man? Let me borrow my cigarette from you. Do you want things to carry you? I know what I gotta have him know. So how you doing, man? How about yourself? Looking at a free man, Billy? Three days, I'm out of here. No kidding, that's great, Charles. Where you headed? No place to be. Right now, I'm just focused on outside these big, big walls, you know? I know what you mean, man. What about you, man? Come on, take a look. I mean, they can't keep you in here forever, right? Hell, I don't know. I'm just sick of wasting my life in here while those bozos are out there trying to come up with some real evidence proving I was at that robbery. I got a hint. So you really covered yourself good on that case, man. Is that safety deposit? Reynolds slips, still the only thing they got in here? Yeah, I'm telling you, Charles, me and Eddie, we planned that heist down to the last detail. Feds will never come up with anything that can stand up in court. That's why they're stalling. In the meantime, they got your ass in here on those. Yeah, well, maybe they're not as smart as they think they are. Yeah, I'm thinking of busting out. No kidding. What you gonna do something like that for, man? I thought they didn't have nothing on you. They'll come up with something, Charles. You know how it goes. They'll invent some shit that'll hang me for sure. I'm not sticking around for the hanging party. Listen, you told me before you got some connections around here. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, what you got in mind? Listen, I don't want to screw you up on your release, but if you could swing it, I could sure use the floor planster as a dump. Really? I don't know, man. I'll make it worth your while, Charles. I swear, me and Eddie, we made out real good on that heist. There's $5,000 in it for you, man. I see what I can do, but I ain't gonna guarantee that. That's fair enough, Charles. I knew I could count on you. Listen, there is one other little favor once you get out. Yeah? I got this girl up in Virginia Beach. Anyway, she's the only one who can get a message to Eddie for me. Feds, they got him stashed upstate. I was thinking you could head on down to her place and tell her I'd like to see her. Yeah, yeah, I can do that. $5,000. Yeah, $5,000. And let me tell you, Virginia Beach is a great place to spend it in. Yeah. On the strength of the information provided by Charles Nichols, obtained during his conversations with Billy Henry, Mr. Henry was tried and convicted in federal court for bank robbery. In his appeal, Mr. Henry moved to suppress the information obtained through his conversations with Mr. Nichols on the grounds that it had been collected in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. What would you decide? The Supreme Court in United States v. Henry held that by initially creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the government had violated Mr. Henry's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The conduct of the informant Nichols involved questioning of Henry, and since the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached, this questioning was in violation of Henry's right to be represented. Any statements, therefore, made by Henry to Nichols were ruled inadmissible as evidence. On July 4, 1970, Joseph Allen Wilson, along with two accomplices, robbed and murdered the night dispatcher of the Star Taxicab Company. An eyewitness to the crime identified Wilson, who was a former employee of the company, as one of the perpetrators. This witness stated that he had seen Wilson running from the scene, carrying large amounts of money in his arms. After alluding the police for four days, Wilson finally turned himself in to local police. His story was that he had witnessed the robbery and could provide a good description of the perpetrators, but he denied any involvement in the robbery or the murder. He claimed that he had fled from the police because he feared he would be implicated in the crime. Based on the strength of the original eyewitness account, which did implicate Wilson, he was arrested and held over for trial. Subsequent to Wilson's arrest, Detective Cullen entered into an agreement with the Mr. Benny Lee, a paid police informant, to gain as much information as possible on Wilson's suspected accomplices. Lee was told that he would be put in the same cell as Wilson, but that he was under no circumstances to ask any questions regarding the robbery or murder. Lee's instructions were just to keep his ears open. Hey, it's off of me, man. I don't need your help. What's that? Mr. Lee, you're gonna be in here for a while, so you better get used to it. Yeah, this is your new home, Benny. Say hello to your new roommate, Joe Wilson. Look, you guys, back off, man. I want to see my lawyer, man. I got a right to see my lawyer. Son of a bitch. Passing Tennessee people like me, man. I want to see my lawyer. You hear me? Don't bother, man. Those guys aren't listening. Yeah, man, I know. I'm not even supposed to be in here, man. Hey, well, neither am I, so join the club. Isn't that something, man, two innocent guys in the same cell? Hey, I'm not kidding, man. They got me pegged for robbery and murder, and I didn't have anything to do with it. Yeah, so what else is new? Hell, man, I was just walking down the street, and I saw these three guys running out of the star cab depot down on 34th Street. Yeah, I know that place. Well, anyway, they were running like hell, carrying a whole bunch of money, and I got a good look at them. Then I started hearing sirens, and I started thinking to myself, hey, Joe, them cops might think that you have something to do with this. So I beat feet on out of there, come to find out, cops looking for me. So I came on down here to the station to tell my story. But do you think those cops are interested in a description of the guys who really did it? No, they took one look at me and put me here in this damn cell. Well, is that the story you told the cops? Hey, what's wrong with it? Is the truth? It just sounds kind of weak to me, man. Hey, well, that's how it happened. You don't have to try to convince me, man. Tell me what I think. I'm sorry, baby. It's all right. Don't blame me, Joe. It tastes as bad as it looks, man. I don't know where to get these monkey meat from. What's the matter, Joe? It's my family. My mom, dad, my brothers. They all know I did it. My brother told me that my dad doesn't even want to talk to me. That's rough, Joe. I swear, Benny, nobody was supposed to get killed. All we wanted was the money. That old Tommy, a damn-witted son of a bitch. He just had to go and play hero. Jesus, Joe, did you tell them the cops this? No. Not yet. I don't know, Benny. I don't know what I'm gonna do. You know, my mom wants to come see me, but my dad just won't even let it come. Based on the new information Benny Lee provided to the police, Joseph Wilson was tried and convicted of robbery and murder. In appealing the case, Wilson moved to suppress the evidence and recovered by Lee, claiming his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. What would you decide? The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have not been violated if an informant, by prior arrangement or voluntarily, reports incriminating statements made by the defendant to the police. The court went on to say that in order for a claim of a violation to be valid, the defendant must demonstrate some action beyond merely listening that was designed to elicit incriminating remarks. The court reasoned that the actions of the informant Benny Lee followed the instructions to only listen and in fact, Lee only listened to Wilson's spontaneous and unsolicited statements.