United States v. Martin
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26021
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Martin was arrested in Warren County, Illinois for possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of cannabis, and possession of a controlled substance after drugs and a silver revolver were found in his car during a traffic stop.
- At the Warren County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Morath read Martin his Miranda rights; Martin waived and spoke, and then declined to provide a written statement, saying, "I'd rather talk to an attorney first before I do that."
- Deputy Morath stopped questioning Martin after the statement and prepared a report, later leaving the scene; he did not speak with Burlington detectives.
- Approximately two to three hours later, Burlington detectives arrived at the Warren County jail, advised Martin of Miranda rights again, and interviewed him about the bank robbery without being informed of the prior request for counsel.
- Martin again waived his Miranda rights and admitted that he loaned a gun to Jackson; the Burlington detectives did not request a written statement and Martin did not ask to speak to an attorney during this interview.
- The district court denied suppression of the statements; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Martin’s invocation of the right to counsel was limited to written statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin’s counsel invocation barred all interrogation or only written statements. | Martin’s request should be read as an absolute invocation of the right to counsel. | The invocation was limited to written statements, not all questioning. | Invocation limited to written statements; questioning allowed to continue. |
| Whether the later interrogation by Burlington detectives violated Edwards/Barrett framework. | The officers should have honored the invocation and halted interrogation. | The later interrogation was permissible because Martin later waived rights and/or the invocation was limited. | No Edwards/Barrett violation given the limited scope of the invocation. |
| Did Martin validly waive his rights after the invocation under Barrett/Edwards standards? | Waiver should be invalid due to prior invocation per Edwards. | Waivers can occur after an invocation if the invocation is limited and responsive to police questions. | Waiver valid for subsequent interrogation by Burlington detectives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (police may question after an initial waiver following warnings)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (invocation ends interrogation unless accused initiates further dialogue)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (Edwards rule extends to all questioning after no counsel available)
- Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1987) (limited requests for counsel may permit some continued talk; Barrett controls here for limited invocation)
- United States v. Spruill, 296 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2002) (suspect's request for attorney is not always outcomes-determinative; context matters)