Yes. The police broke the rules. The detective's speech wasn't just a friendly chat; it was a sneaky way of questioning Williams. It was designed to play on his emotions and religious beliefs to get him to confess. Since Williams had already been charged, had a lawyer, and the police had promised not to question him, this violated his constitutional right to have his lawyer with him. He didn't 'give up' his right; he was manipulated.

Yes. The detective knew exactly what he was doing and intentionally violated Williams' rights. A terrible crime is no excuse for police to break the law themselves.

Yes. The detective's speech was definitely a form of interrogation. The whole situation—a long car ride with a religious, mentally troubled man—was designed to pressure him into talking. The government offered no real proof that Williams willingly gave up his rights.

Yes. The police made a promise to Williams' lawyer and then broke it. For our legal system to work, the government has to honor its agreements with attorneys who are protecting people's rights.

No. This decision is ridiculous. Williams confessed voluntarily, knowing he had the right to stay silent. The detective didn't force him to do anything. Now, a murderer might go free because the court is punishing society for a police officer's harmless comment.

No. Williams knew his rights perfectly well. He chose to give them up when he decided to start talking. Just because he didn't say the magic words 'I waive my rights' doesn't mean he didn't do it with his actions.

No. The detective's speech wasn't an 'interrogation.' He was just talking, and Williams volunteered the information. He wasn't being grilled under hot lights; he was just in a car. People in custody often talk without being questioned.

No, Williams did not give up his right to have his lawyer with him. He had already been charged with the crime, so he had the right to have his lawyer there when the police talked to him. His lawyers told him not to say anything, but the police officer still tried to get him to talk about the crime when his lawyers weren't there. The officer did this by talking about things he knew would make Williams want to talk, like his religious beliefs. The government couldn't prove that Williams meant to give up his right to have a lawyer. So the things he said to the police can't be used as evidence.

I disagree with the Court's decision. Williams was told his rights many times and chose to show the police where the girl's body was, even though his lawyers said not to talk. What he said was his choice and should be allowed as evidence. Not allowing it means a guilty murderer might go free. The Court is punishing everyone else because of what the police did.

The facts show Williams did give up his right to a lawyer. He was told his rights by his lawyers and the police many times. Then he decided on his own to lead the police to the evidence and the body. No one forced him to do this. The Court is making it impossible for the government to prove someone gave up their rights if they didn't say it out loud. But we can tell Williams gave them up by his actions.

The police did not do anything wrong. They didn't try to keep Williams away from his lawyers on purpose. The officer's comments about finding the body weren't really questioning Williams. Williams chose to talk on his own. The Court's decision will let a guilty murderer go free for no good reason.

I fully agree with the Court. The police officer purposely tried to make Williams talk without his lawyers there. He did this by taking advantage of the fact that Williams had mental problems and strong religious beliefs. The Court is using the right test to decide if someone gave up their rights. Letting Williams' conviction stand would be allowing very bad behavior by the police.

I agree with the Court's opinion. It's clear from the facts that the police officer cleverly tried to get Williams to say things that would hurt his case, while keeping him away from his lawyers. This was wrong because the police had agreed not to do that. There's no proof Williams gave up his rights except that he eventually talked. We shouldn't assume someone gave up their rights just because they talked.

This case is very sad, which makes it hard to decide fairly. But the Court has to apply the law in a way that works for the future too. If we really care about people having the right to a lawyer, we can't let the government break its promise to a lawyer that it wouldn't question their client without them there. Letting the government do that would make it hard for lawyers to do their important job of helping people.

Yes, Williams did give up his right to have his lawyer with him. He was told his rights by his lawyers and the police many times. Then he decided on his own to lead the police to the evidence and the body. No one forced him to do this. The Court is making it impossible for the government to prove someone gave up their rights if they didn't say it out loud. But we can tell Williams gave them up by his actions.

Yes, Williams gave up his right to have his lawyer with him when he talked to the police after being charged. The police did not do anything wrong. They didn't try to keep Williams away from his lawyers on purpose. The officer's comments about finding the body weren't really questioning Williams. Williams chose to talk on his own. The Court's decision will let a guilty murderer go free for no good reason.

I agree that Williams did not give up his right to have his lawyer with him when he talked to the police after being charged. This case is very sad, which makes it hard to decide fairly. But the Court has to apply the law in a way that works for the future too. If we really care about people having the right to a lawyer, we can't let the government break its promise to a lawyer that it wouldn't question their client without them there. Letting the government do that would make it hard for lawyers to do their important job of helping people.

—the right to counsel granted by the [Sixth Amendment] means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment

To that end, "the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused's right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent."

The Supreme Court held that Williams was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel.

The sixth amendment right to counsel attaches as soon as judicial proceedings have been initiated against the defendant.

—it is "incumbent upon the State to prove an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege."

The court must indulge in every reasonable presumption against the defendant's waiver of right to counsel.

The United States Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that the surreptitious nature of the police conduct in eliciting uncounseled statements has any constitutional significance.

—covered the body they might not be able to find it and that " `I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas [E] ve and murdered. And I feel we should stop and locate it on the way in rather than waiting until morning and trying to come back …

In spelling out the elements of an illegal reentry offense in Medina, we did not silently overrule our prior precedent holding that "[t] he government bears the burden of proving the waiver."

Whether a criminal defendant has waived his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy is "not a question of historical fact [] but one which... requires `application of constitutional principles'"to the facts.

Yes. Once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. Here, Detective Leaming deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from Williams, which was the functional equivalent of an interrogation, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Judicial proceedings had already been initiated against Williams through his arraignment. The 'Christian burial speech' was not a mere observation but a purposeful effort to obtain incriminating information in the absence of counsel, contrary to a specific agreement. The State failed to meet its heavy burden of proving that Williams intentionally relinquished or abandoned his known right to counsel. Williams’ consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel, securing lawyers at both ends of the trip, and his statements that he would talk only after seeing his lawyer in Des Moines all refute any suggestion of waiver.

Yes. Detective Leaming consciously and knowingly set out to violate Williams’ Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights. This was intentional police misconduct, not good police work, and the heinous nature of the crime provides no excuse for condoning a knowing police transgression of a defendant's constitutional rights.

Yes. The critical factual issue is whether there was interrogation, and the record clearly supports the lower courts' findings that Detective Leaming's efforts were a skillful and effective form of interrogation. The entire setting—a long car ride with a mentally unwell and religious man on the day after Christmas—was conducive to psychological coercion. The State produced no affirmative evidence to support its claim of waiver.

Yes. Underlying the case is the question of whether the State can be permitted to dishonor its promise to a lawyer, made during negotiations that led to a voluntary surrender. If counsel is to be effective, the state cannot break its commitments made to lawyers who are acting as the essential medium between the sovereign and the citizen.

No. The result is intolerable and continues the course of punishing the public for the mistakes of law enforcement. Williams' disclosures were voluntary and made with full awareness of his rights, constituting a valid waiver. The court mechanically applies the exclusionary rule to a situation where the police conduct was not egregious and the evidence obtained is entirely reliable, thus exalting a sporting theory of justice.

No. Williams knew his right not to speak without counsel to a moral certainty, having been advised by multiple officials and two lawyers. He intentionally relinquished that right by spontaneously changing his mind during the car ride. A waiver need not be express; it is established when the facts show an accused knew of a right and intended to relinquish it, which was plainly shown here.

No. Leaming’s 'Christian burial speech' was not an interrogation, direct or subtle. The police did not deliberately seek to isolate Williams from his lawyers; the isolation was a necessary incident of transporting him. Not every attempt to elicit information should be regarded as tantamount to interrogation, and statements volunteered in response to stimuli other than interrogation should be admissible if voluntary.

No, Williams did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Judicial proceedings had been initiated against him, so he had a right to legal representation when the police interrogated him. Despite being told by his attorneys not to speak to police until consulting with them, Detective Leaming deliberately elicited incriminating information from Williams during the drive. This was done in isolation from his attorneys through psychological ploys, playing on Williams' mental state and religious convictions. The State failed to prove that Williams intentionally relinquished his right to counsel, so his statements should have been suppressed. The circumstances show no reasonable basis for finding a valid waiver.

The Court's holding represents poor public policy and a serious misapplication of the law. Williams was informed of his rights multiple times and chose to lead police to the victim's body despite advice from counsel not to speak. The statements were voluntary and highly reliable. Excluding this evidence serves no constitutional purpose and prevents justice from being served. The Court is punishing the public for the actions of law enforcement.

The facts show that Williams validly waived his right to counsel. After being advised of his rights by multiple attorneys and police officers, Williams chose to direct police to the evidence and victim's body. His statements were clearly voluntary and uncoerced. The majority's conclusion that no waiver was established imposes an impossible burden on the State. A valid waiver can be inferred from the facts here without an explicit verbal waiver.

The police did not violate Williams' Sixth Amendment rights. They did not deliberately seek to isolate him from his attorneys. Detective Leaming's remarks about finding the victim's body were not tantamount to interrogation. Williams' statements were spontaneous and voluntary. The Court's holding will lead to the release of a clearly guilty murderer for no good reason.

I agree fully with the Court's opinion. Detective Leaming engaged in a deliberate scheme to violate Williams' right to counsel, taking advantage of his mental state and religious convictions. The waiver standard applied by the Court is the correct one. Allowing a conviction to stand in these circumstances would condone egregious police misconduct and constitutional violations.

I join the Court's opinion. The record clearly shows that Detective Leaming engaged in a skillful attempt to elicit incriminating statements from Williams in isolation from his attorneys, despite an agreement not to do so. There is no evidence of a valid waiver other than the fact that statements were eventually obtained. An inferred waiver of the right to counsel should be disfavored.

The emotional aspects of this tragic case make it difficult to decide dispassionately, but the Court has an obligation to apply the law with an eye to the future. If we are seriously concerned about the right to counsel, the State cannot be permitted to dishonor its promise to an attorney that it would not interrogate his client in his absence. Allowing that would undermine the role of attorneys in our system.

Yes, Williams validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. The Court's holding represents poor public policy and a serious misapplication of the law. Williams was informed of his rights multiple times and chose to lead police to the victim's body despite advice from counsel not to speak. The statements were voluntary and highly reliable. Excluding this evidence serves no constitutional purpose and prevents justice from being served. The Court is punishing the public for the actions of law enforcement.

Yes, Williams validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. The facts show that Williams validly waived his right to counsel. After being advised of his rights by multiple attorneys and police officers, Williams chose to direct police to the evidence and victim's body. His statements were clearly voluntary and uncoerced. The majority's conclusion that no waiver was established imposes an impossible burden on the State. A valid waiver can be inferred from the facts here without an explicit verbal waiver.

Yes, Williams validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. The police did not violate Williams' Sixth Amendment rights. They did not deliberately seek to isolate him from his attorneys. Detective Leaming's remarks about finding the victim's body were not tantamount to interrogation. Williams' statements were spontaneous and voluntary. The Court's holding will lead to the release of a clearly guilty murderer for no good reason.

No, Williams did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. I agree fully with the Court's opinion. Detective Leaming engaged in a deliberate scheme to violate Williams' right to counsel, taking advantage of his mental state and religious convictions. The waiver standard applied by the Court is the correct one. Allowing a conviction to stand in these circumstances would condone egregious police misconduct and constitutional violations.

No, Williams did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. I join the Court's opinion. The record clearly shows that Detective Leaming engaged in a skillful attempt to elicit incriminating statements from Williams in isolation from his attorneys, despite an agreement not to do so. There is no evidence of a valid waiver other than the fact that statements were eventually obtained. An inferred waiver of the right to counsel should be disfavored.

No, Williams did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he made incriminating statements to police while being transported in the absence of his attorneys after judicial proceedings had been initiated against him. The emotional aspects of this tragic case make it difficult to decide dispassionately, but the Court has an obligation to apply the law with an eye to the future. If we are seriously concerned about the right to counsel, the State cannot be permitted to dishonor its promise to an attorney that it would not interrogate his client in his absence. Allowing that would undermine the role of attorneys in our system.

Brewer v. Williams

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot