CONNECTICUT v. BARRETT
No. 85-899
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 9, 1986—Decided January 27, 1987
479 U.S. 523
Julia DiCocco Dewey, Assistant State‘s Attorney of Connecticut, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Charles A. Rothfeld argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Trott, and Deputy Solicitor General Bryson.
Robert L. Genuario argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John F. Kavanewsky, Jr.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alaska et al. by David Crump and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Harold M. Brown of Alaska, Robert K. Corbin of Arizona, John Steven Clark of Arkansas, John K. Van de Kamp of California, Duane Woodard of Colorado, James T. Jones of Idaho, Linley E. Pearson of Indiana, David L. Armstrong of Kentucky, William J. Guste, Jr., of Louisiana, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Hubert H. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Edwin L. Pittman of Mississippi, William L. Webster of Missouri, Lacy H. Thornburg of North Carolina, LeRoy S. Zimmerman of Pennsylvania, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Mark V. Meierhenry of South Dakota, Mary Sue Terry of Virginia, Kenneth O. Eikenberry of Washington, and Bronson C. La Follette of Wisconsin; and for the National District Attorneys Association by Robert S. Marsel, Jack E. Yelverton, and James P. Manak.
Respondent William Barrett was convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault, unlawful restraint, and possession of a controlled substance. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the convictions. It held that incriminating statements made by Barrett should have been suppressed under our decision in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), because Barrett, though stating his willingness to speak to police, had indicated that he would not make a written statement outside the presence of counsel. 197 Conn. 50, 495 A. 2d 1044 (1985). We granted certiorari to consider the federal constitutional issues presented by this holding. 476 U. S. 1114 (1986). We reverse.
In the early morning of October 24, 1980, Barrett was transported from New Haven, Connecticut, to Wallingford, where he was a suspect in a sexual assault that had occurred the previous evening. Upon arrival at the Wallingford police station, Officer Peter Cameron advised Barrett of his rights, and Barrett signed and dated an acknowledgment that he had received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Barrett stated that “he would not give the police any written statements but he had no problem in talking about the incident.” App. 12A.
Approximately 30 minutes later, Barrett was questioned by Officer Cameron and Officer John Genovese. Before this questioning, he was again advised of his Miranda rights and signed a card acknowledging that he had been read the rights. Respondent stated that he understood his rights, and told the officers that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present but had “no problem” talking about the incident. Id., at 21A. Barrett then gave an oral statement admitting his involvement in the sexual assault.
After discovering that a tape recorder used to preserve the statement had malfunctioned, the police conducted a second
When the officers discovered that their tape recorder had again failed to record the statement, Officer Cameron reduced to writing his recollection of respondent‘s statement.
The trial court, after a suppression hearing, held that the confession was admissible. It found that respondent not only indicated that he understood the warnings, but also “offered the statements that he did not need anything explained to him because he understood. So it was not merely a passive acquiescence. . . .” Id., at 70A. Barrett‘s decision to make no written statement without his attorney “indicate[d] to the Court that he certainly understood from having his rights read to him that . . . he was under no obligation to give any statement.” Ibid. The court held that Barrett had voluntarily waived his right to counsel and thus allowed testimony at trial as to the content of Barrett‘s statement. Barrett took the stand in his own defense and testified that he had understood his rights as they were read to him. Id., at 130A. He was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 9 to 18 years.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that respondent had invoked his right to counsel by refusing to make written statements without the presence of his attorney. In the court‘s view, Barrett‘s expressed desire for counsel before making a written statement served as an invocation of the right for all purposes:
“The fact that the defendant attached his request for counsel to the making of a written statement does not affect the outcome of . . . our inquiry. No particular form of words has ever been required to trigger an individual‘s fifth amendment protections; nor have requests for
counsel been narrowly construed. The defendant‘s refusal to give a written statement without his attorney present was a clear request for the assistance of counsel to protect his rights in his dealings with the police. Such a request continues to be constitutionally effective despite the defendant‘s willingness to make oral statements. We conclude, therefore, that the defendant did invoke his right to counsel under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” 197 Conn., at 57, 495 A. 2d, at 1049 (citations omitted).
This invocation, the court believed, brought the case within what it called the “bright-line rule for establishing a waiver of this right.” Id., at 58, 495 A. 2d, at 1049. That rule requires a finding that the suspect “(a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he had invoked.” Smith v. Illinois, 469 U. S. 91, 95 (1984) (per curiam). See also Edwards, supra, at 485, 486, n. 9. Because Barrett had not initiated further discussions with police, the court found his statement improperly admitted.
We think that the Connecticut Supreme Court erred in holding that the United States Constitution required suppression of Barrett‘s statement. Barrett made clear to police his willingness to talk about the crime for which he was a suspect. The trial court found that this decision was a voluntary waiver of his rights, and there is no evidence that Barrett was “threatened, tricked, or cajoled” into this waiver. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 476. The Connecticut Supreme Court nevertheless held as a matter of law1 that respond-
The fundamental purpose of the Court‘s decision in Miranda was “to assure that the individual‘s right to choose between speech and silence remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process.” Id., at 469 (emphasis added). See also Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 426 (1986) (”Miranda attempted to reconcile [competing] concerns by giving the defendant the power to exert some control over the course of the interrogation“) (emphasis in original); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 308 (1985) (“Once warned, the suspect is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or not to make a statement to the authorities“) (emphasis added). To this end, the Miranda Court adopted prophylactic rules designed to insulate the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights from the government “compulsion, subtle or otherwise,” that “operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” Miranda, supra, at 474. See also Smith, supra, at 98; Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U. S. 1039, 1044 (1983). One such rule requires that, once the accused “states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” Miranda, supra, at 474. See also Edwards, 451 U. S., at 484. It remains clear, however, that this prohibition on further questioning—like other aspects of Miranda—is not itself required by the Fifth Amendment‘s prohibition on coerced confessions, but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984). By prohibiting further interrogation after the invocation of these rights, we erect an auxiliary barrier against police coercion.
The Connecticut Supreme Court‘s decision to the contrary rested on the view that requests for counsel are not to be narrowly construed. 197 Conn., at 57, 495 A. 2d, at 1049. In support of this premise, respondent observes that our prior decisions have given broad effect to requests for counsel that were less than all-inclusive. See Bradshaw, supra, at 1041–1042 (“I do want an attorney before it goes very much further“); Edwards, supra, at 479 (“I want an attorney before making a deal“). We do not denigrate the “settled approach to questions of waiver [that] requires us to give a broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation to a defendant‘s request for counsel,” Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 633 (1986), when we observe that this approach does little to aid respondent‘s cause. Interpretation is only required where the defendant‘s words, understood as ordinary people would understand them, are ambiguous. Here, however, Barrett made clear his intentions, and they were honored by police.3 To conclude that respondent invoked his right to
We also reject the contention that the distinction drawn by Barrett between oral and written statements indicates an understanding of the consequences so incomplete that we should deem his limited invocation of the right to counsel effective for all purposes. This suggestion ignores Barrett‘s testimony—and the finding of the trial court not questioned by the Connecticut Supreme Court—that respondent fully understood the Miranda warnings. These warnings, of course, made clear to Barrett that “[i]f you talk to any police officers, anything you say can and will be used against you in court.” App. at 48A. The fact that some might find Barrett‘s decision illogical4 is irrelevant, for we have never “embraced the theory that a defendant‘s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness.” Elstad, supra, at 316; Colorado v. Spring, post, p. 564.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment that the Constitution does not require the suppression of Barrett‘s statements to the police, but for reasons different from those set forth in the opinion of the Court. Barrett‘s contemporaneous waiver of his right to silence and limited invocation of his right to counsel (for the
I
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the Court held that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that a defendant must receive detailed warnings that he or she has the rights to remain silent and to receive assistance of counsel before and during questioning. A statement obtained from a defendant during custodial interrogation is admissible only if the State carries its “heavy burden” of establishing that a defendant has executed a valid waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. Id., at 475. To do so, the State must demonstrate “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); see Miranda, supra, at 475–479. In making this determination, courts must examine “the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at 464.
The language and tenor of the Miranda opinion suggested that the Court would require that a waiver of the rights at stake be “specifically made.” See 384 U. S., at 470. While the Court retreated from that position in North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U. S. 369, 373 (1979), I continue to believe that the Court should require the police to obtain an “affirmative waiver” of Miranda rights before proceeding with interro-
In this case, Barrett affirmatively waived his Miranda rights. Unlike the defendant in Butler, Barrett orally expressed his willingness to talk with the police and willingly signed a form indicating that he understood his rights. The police obtained an explicit oral waiver of the right to silence. Furthermore, the officer who administered the Miranda warnings to Barrett testified that the latter understood his rights “[c]ompletely“: “I asked [Barrett] several times during my administration of those rights, if, in fact, he understood them; if there were points he wanted me to clarify, and he indicated to me, no, he understood everything fairly well.” Tr. 452. At trial, one issue was whether Barrett voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and Barrett himself testified that he understood his rights as they were read to him. Id., at 879–880.1
Had the State been without Barrett‘s testimony at trial, where he was represented by counsel, I could not reach this conclusion. Barrett‘s statement to police—that he would talk to them, but allow nothing in writing without counsel—created doubt about whether he actually understood that anything he said could be used against him. In other words, the statement is not, on its face, a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to silence.2 As a general matter, I be-
In sum, the State has carried its “heavy burden” of demonstrating waiver. It has shown that Barrett received the Miranda warnings, that he had the capacity to understand them4 and in fact understood them, and that he expressly
II
Barrett argues that his refusal to make a written statement without an attorney present constituted an invocation of the right to counsel for all purposes and that any further interrogation after this mention of his desire for an attorney was impermissible under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981). It is settled that any plain reference, however glancing, to a need or a desire for representation must result in the cessation of questioning. See Miranda, 384 U. S., at 444–445 (questioning must cease when the accused “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking“); Smith v. Illinois, 469 U. S. 91 (1984) (per curiam).
I believe that a partial invocation of the right to counsel, without more, invariably will be ambiguous. It gives rise to doubts about the defendant‘s precise wishes regarding representation and about his or her understanding of the nature and scope of the right to counsel. Thus, the police may not infer from a partial invocation of the right to counsel alone that the defendant has waived any of his or her rights not specifically invoked.
However, circumstances may clarify an otherwise ambiguous situation. If the partial invocation is accompanied by an explicit waiver of the right to silence that is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, it may lose its ambiguity.5 It may be-
For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
The Court‘s disposition of this case raises two troublesome questions.
First, why did the Court decide to exercise its discretion to grant review in this case? The facts of the case are surely unique. They do not give rise to any issue of general or recurring significance. There is no conflict among the state or federal courts on how the narrow question presented should be resolved. It is merely a case in which one State Supreme Court arguably granted more protection to a citizen accused of crime than the Federal Constitution requires.1 The State “asks us to rule that the state court interpreted federal rights too broadly and ‘overprotected’ the citizen.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1068 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). If this is a sufficient reason for adding a case to our already overcrowded docket, we will need, not one, but several newly fashioned “intercircuit tribunals” to keep abreast of our work.
Second, why was respondent‘s request for the assistance of counsel any less ambiguous than the request in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981)? In that case, the defendant said that he wanted an attorney “‘before making a deal.‘”
I would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.