People v. Harris, 93 A.D.3d 58

Defendant was detained after a traffic stop and transported to State Police headquarters for interrogation about the Fitts homicide.
During the September 18, 2006 interview, after being shown a photo of the victim and asked for a DNA sample and polygraphs, the defendant stated, “I think I want to talk to a lawyer and I want to go.”
The County Court suppressed the September 18 statements but admitted the September 22–23 statements after Miranda advisement and attenuation, finding no unequivocal invocation and that waiver was voluntary.
At trial, prosecutors relied on the September 22–23 statements, along with circumstantial evidence and cooperating witness testimony, to convict the defendant of murder, kidnapping, and tampering with physical evidence.
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant unequivocally invoked the right to counsel, thus requiring suppression of the September 22–23 statements, and reversed in part, granting a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the statement constitute an unequivocal invocation of counsel?	Defendant did not unequivocally invoke; ambiguous request not triggering right to counsel.	Statement clearly invoked the right to counsel and to be released; officers understood it as a request for an attorney.	Yes; invocation was unequivocal and attached the right to counsel.
Were the September 22–23 statements admissible after an invocation of counsel without proper waiver?	Waiver occurred in the presence of counsel and later statements were voluntary post-Miranda.	Custodial invocation required suppression of any further questioning without counsel present.	Statements should have been suppressed.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	Guilt was overwhelming; error could not have contributed to verdict.	Erroneous admission of statements could have influenced the jury despite other evidence.	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal ordered.

People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318 (2003) (establishes indelible right to counsel when invoked in custody)
People v Esposito, 68 NY2d 961 (1986) (unambiguous invocation can lead to suppression of subsequent statements)
People v Porter, 9 NY3d 966 (2007) (unequivocal invocation depends on words and officer's understanding)
People v Wood, 40 AD3d 663 (2007) (police actions after request may impact admissibility; harmless error analysis discussed)
People v Davis, 512 US 452 (1994) (objective standard for what constitutes an unequivocal request for counsel)
People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838 (1995) (courts assess whether the defendant’s words amount to a request for counsel)
People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 (1990) (custody status and interrogation considerations in right-to-counsel analysis)
People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 (1975) (harmless error standard and its demanding nature)