Downey v. State, 144 So. 3d 146

Downey was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and first-degree arson in Mississippi; sentences were two concurrent 12-year terms.
Fire investigators found Downey leaving the burned home with a large bag; a bag of stolen items from the home was found at a relative’s residence.
Downey initially lied to a deputy about involvement in the fire, then admitted she had been in the home earlier that evening.
Downey was interrogated at the jail; after Miranda rights were read, she stated she could use her attorney, Brad Sullivan.
The officer continued questioning after Downey indicated she could use counsel; Downey subsequently gave a recorded statement.
The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Downey invoke the right to counsel?	Downey invoked counsel by stating she had an attorney and could use him.	Downey ambiguously referenced counsel; clarification was appropriate and interrogation continued under Holland/Davis distinction.	Downey invoked the right to counsel; interrogation continued improperly.
Was the Miranda waiver valid after continued questioning without counsel?	Waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; continued questioning did not erase waiver.	Continued questioning after invocation invalidates waiver; state bears heavy burden to prove valid waiver.	State failed to prove a valid waiver beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was the trial court’s denial of suppression an abuse of discretion?	The interrogation violated Miranda; suppression should have been granted.	Interrogation was permissible under Holland and admitting statements aligned with waiver.	Abused discretion; suppression should have been granted.

Barnes v. State, 30 So.3d 313 (Miss.2010) (ambiguous request for counsel requires clarifying questions; otherwise stop interrogation)
Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848 (Miss.1991) (three-part test for ambiguous requests; governs clarification and waiver analysis)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S.1994) (suspect must unambiguously request counsel; clarifying questions may be allowed but not required)
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (U.S.1979) (standard for valid waiver of rights when interrogation continues without counsel)
Montoya v. Collins, 955 F.2d 279 (5th Cir.1992) (no magic words required to invoke right to counsel; broad interpretation of request)