553 F. App'x 555
6th Cir.2014Background
- Scott invoked his right to counsel after arrest and then initially communicated with police by stating he would talk later.
- Police arrested Scott on May 28, 2008 for robberies; he matched the description and fled when confronted, with related items found nearby.
- After Miranda warnings, Scott invoked counsel and questioning ceased; he later re-initiated dialogue.
- The Bartlett jail transfer and subsequent interrogation occurred May 29–30; Scott confessed several times and signed written waivers.
- The district court found Scott initiated contact; on remand the district court again held Scott initiated and confessions were voluntary.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding initiation by Scott and the voluntariness of the statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Scott initiate contact after invoking counsel? | Scott | Hutchison | Yes, Scott initiated contact. |
| Are Scott’s confessions voluntary after re-initiation? | Scott | United States | Yes, confessions were voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (non-consensual interrogation after counsel requires initiation by suspect for further questioning)
- Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1983) (initiation of generalized discussion can reinstate interrogation rights)
- Whaley v. United States, 13 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 1994) (establishes what constitutes 'initiation' by the suspect)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (confirms continued applicability of Miranda rights)
- United States v. McWhorter, 515 F. App’x 511 (6th Cir. 2013) (re-interrogation after invoking counsel not dispositive when initiation by suspect occurred earlier)