United States v. Casey Hunter, 708 F.3d 938

Hunter was shot and arrested after police observed a drug deal and a gun was found near him.
He was transported to a hospital, handcuffed to a gurney, and treated with narcotics while alert.
Detective Karzin advised rights and Hunter initially indicated willingness to talk, asking for a minute to think and for his charges.
Hunter asked Karzin to call his mother, father, and attorney Herbert Schultz; Karzin did not contact Schultz, but relayed information that a gun was found.
Morrisey and George later interrogated Hunter within two hours, reading him Miranda rights and eliciting incriminating statements.
The district court suppressed Hunter’s statements, concluding an unambiguous invocation of counsel occurred; the government appealed intermediately; the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo with factual findings for clear error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'Can you call my attorney?' unambiguously invokes counsel	Hunter unambiguously invoked right to counsel	Statement was ambiguous given context and subsequent events	Unambiguous invocation; suppression upheld
Role of prior context in interpreting invocation	Context supports unambiguous invocation	Prior context should be considered; may render invocation ambiguous	Context supports unambiguous invocation; prior events considered
Whether Detective Karzin's follow-up question constitutes interrogation after invocation	Question not interrogation; permissible clarification per Davis/Innis	Follow-up invite was reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response	Follow-up constitutes interrogation; suppression appropriate

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (unambiguous invocation halts interrogation until counsel present)
Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1984) (ambiguity in request allows interrogation to continue; confession excluded when request unambiguous)
United States v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2005) (unambiguous requests for counsel cited in context)
United States v. Wysinger, 683 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (clarifying questions may be encouraged but context governs invocation)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clarification of an ambiguous reference to counsel is permissible)
Innis v. Connecticut, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (interrogation requires reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response)
Hampton v. United States, 675 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior cooperation is a factor in assessing ambiguity of invocation)
Lord v. Duckworth, 29 F.3d 1216 (7th Cir. 1994) (prior incriminating statements affect interpretation of later invocation)
Shabaz v. United States, 579 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2009) (pre-interrogation questions about counsel may be non-interrogation)
Briggs v. United States, 273 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2001) (direct questions after invocation can be non-interrogation depending on context)