Claudio v. Scully
1992 WL 91461, 791 F. Supp. 985, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6591 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment right to counsel during a pre-charge custodial interrogation does not include a right to the effective assistance of counsel. A confession is admissible so long as it is voluntary and not the product of governmental coercion, regardless of the quality of the legal advice that prompted it.
Facts:
- On May 15, 1980, Angel Claudio and three other youths accosted Steven Zweikert as he was returning home from his prom.
- During a struggle over a gun brandished by Claudio, Zweikert was fatally shot.
- On May 21, 1980, police received information from Andrew Boyle identifying Claudio as having a gun on the night of the murder.
- After being questioned by police, Claudio retained attorney Mark Heller.
- Heller advised Claudio to surrender and confess, suggesting he might receive probation, and did not inform Claudio that the District Attorney had already rejected any plea bargain.
- In the presence of Heller and after receiving Miranda warnings, Claudio went to the District Attorney's office and confessed to his involvement in the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Claudio’s new attorney filed a pre-trial motion in the state trial court to suppress the confession based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and the motion was granted.
- The prosecution appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate New York appellate court. The Appellate Division reversed the suppression, holding the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached.
- Claudio, as appellant, appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which affirmed the Appellate Division's decision.
- Claudio was subsequently tried and convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and weapon possession.
- After exhausting his state court appeals, Claudio filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court is now ruling on that habeas petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's right to counsel during a pre-charge interrogation include a right to effective assistance of counsel, requiring the suppression of a voluntary confession that resulted from an attorney's incompetent advice?
Opinions:
Majority - Korman, District Judge
No. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel during a pre-charge interrogation does not include a right to effective assistance. The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel only attaches after the initiation of formal adversarial judicial proceedings, which had not occurred when Claudio confessed. The right to counsel under Miranda is based on the Fifth Amendment, and its sole concern is protecting a suspect from governmental coercion. Because Claudio's confession was voluntary and not compelled by the state, it is not subject to suppression merely because his attorney provided bad advice. An attorney’s role under Miranda is to prevent law enforcement from coercing a confession, not to prevent a defendant from confessing voluntarily.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, specifically at the pre-arraignment stage. It establishes that the protections against ineffective assistance of counsel do not extend to the Miranda right to counsel during police interrogation. The ruling insulates voluntary confessions from challenges based on the competency of counsel's pre-charge advice, focusing the inquiry solely on the presence of state coercion. This significantly narrows the grounds on which a defendant can seek to suppress a confession made with an attorney present before formal charges are filed.
