Dorsey v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 3
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Dorsey was convicted of assault and robbery of an elderly street vendor, with a videotaped confession as key evidence.
- During an overnight custodial interrogation, detectives violated Miranda and Edwards by pressuring Dorsey after he invoked his rights.
- Dorsey invoked his right to counsel and right to remain silent, but officers continued questioning and later sought a second meeting where he confessed.
- A suppression motion was denied; at en banc, the court held Edwards’s initiation and waiver requirements were not satisfied due to police coercion.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling the confession could not be used in the government’s case-in-chief, though it could be used for impeachment if retried.
- The videotaped Sunday interrogation of Dorsey, without re-advising rights or obtaining a new waiver, was central to the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Edwards initiation satisfy the requirements after post-invocation badgering? | Dorsey’s delayed response was not a product of coercion and should count as initiation. | Initiation was invalid because it was tainted by prior Edwards violation and police coercion. | Initiation not valid; confession suppressed in case-in-chief. |
| Was Dorsey's waiver of rights knowing, intelligent, and voluntary after Edwards violation? | Waiver occurred; Dorsey understood rights and chose to talk. | Waiver could not be validly obtained given Edwards violation and lack of re-advisal. | Waiver not validly established; confession not admissible in case-in-chief. |
| Is the confession admissible as substantive evidence given Edwards and Miranda violations? | Confession could be admissible if voluntary and initiated properly. | Violations require suppression of the confession as substantive evidence. | Confession suppressed as a matter of law; retrial ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (warns of right to counsel and right to silence; interrogation must cease on invocation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (post-invocation protection requires counsel unless suspect initiates waivers and conversations)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (definition of knowing and voluntary waiver when rights asserted)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (voet: limits on Edwards protection; requires justification for renewed interrogation)
- United States v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (right to cut off questioning is critical safeguard in Miranda)