Commonwealth v. Collins

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
440 Mass. 475 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The police duty to inform a suspect of an attorney’s efforts to provide legal advice does not extend to an attorney's prior request to be present at an interview if the suspect has already retained and consulted with that attorney regarding the matter and the police have not interfered with the attorney-client relationship.

Facts:

On November 22, 2000, Seekonk police began an investigation into sexual abuse allegations against Donald Collins.
On November 27, Detective Russell Brennan arranged to interview Collins, but Collins postponed the meeting on November 28 to hire an attorney.
On November 29, Attorney Mark Bond contacted Brennan, stated he represented Collins, and said he wanted to be present at the interview, which he rescheduled.
On November 30, Bond contacted Brennan again and cancelled the rescheduled interview.
Following the cancellation, police obtained a warrant and arrested Collins on December 1.
During transport after his arrest, Collins voluntarily told police he had been in touch with a lawyer and was embarrassed by his lawyer's failure to arrange the interview.
At the police station, Collins was read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver form, and reiterated his willingness to speak with officers.
Police interviewed Collins without informing him of Attorney Bond's specific request from November 29 to be present during questioning.

Procedural Posture:

Donald Collins was indicted for forcible rape of a child and indecent assault and battery.
Collins filed a pretrial motion in Superior Court to suppress statements made during his December 1 police interview.
The Superior Court judge held a hearing and granted the motion to suppress.
The Commonwealth filed an application for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court.
The appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, but the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case to itself on its own motion.

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 rule from Commonwealth v. Mavredakis require police to inform a suspect in custody of his attorney's request, made several days prior, to be present during any future interview, when the suspect has already retained and consulted with that same attorney regarding the investigation?

Opinions:

Majority - Cordy, J.

No. The rule established in Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, which requires police to inform a suspect of an attorney's efforts to provide assistance, does not apply in these circumstances. The court reasoned that the core concern of Mavredakis—to 'actualize the abstract right' to counsel—is not present when a suspect has already retained and consulted with an attorney regarding the specific matter under investigation. For Collins, the Miranda warning was not an 'abstract offer to call some unknown lawyer,' but an invitation to contact the very lawyer he had already hired. Because Collins was fully cognizant of his right to counsel through his established relationship with Attorney Bond, and the police did nothing to impede contact or interfere with that relationship, their failure to relay the attorney's several-days-old request did not invalidate Collins's waiver of his rights.

Analysis:

This decision significantly narrows the scope of the bright-line rule established in Commonwealth v. Mavredakis. It distinguishes between a situation where police keep a suspect ignorant of an attorney's contemporaneous attempt to make contact (which is impermissible) and a situation where a suspect has a pre-existing attorney-client relationship. The ruling places more responsibility on the defendant and their counsel to manage communication and strategy once representation is established. It signals that courts will not extend the duty-to-inform rule to cover past communications where the suspect is already fully aware of their right to counsel and has a known attorney available to them.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Collins (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"