Commonwealth v. Sherman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
389 Mass. 287, 450 N.E.2d 566 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A suspect's waiver of Miranda rights is invalid when police fail to inform the suspect that an attorney, who is known by the police to represent the suspect, has requested to be present during the interrogation, even if the attorney's representation is for an unrelated matter.

Facts:

Ms. Rita Scales, a public defender, was representing the defendant, Sherman, on a pending breaking and entering charge.
State Police Officer Leon Manning knew Ms. Scales was representing Sherman.
On August 14, 1980, Officer Manning told Ms. Scales he intended to question Sherman about separate housebreaks in Savoy, Massachusetts.
Ms. Scales informed Officer Manning that she wanted to be present during Sherman's questioning and asked to be notified of the time and place.
Later that day, Officer Manning brought Sherman to the police station for questioning about the Savoy housebreaks.
At the station, Officer Manning advised Sherman of his Miranda rights, which Sherman stated he understood. Sherman did not request an attorney.
Officer Manning never informed Sherman that Ms. Scales had requested to be present during his interrogation.
During the interrogation, Sherman made a statement implicating himself in two housebreaks, which he then signed.

Procedural Posture:

Sherman was charged with larceny and breaking and entering.
Prior to trial, Sherman filed a motion in the trial court to suppress his statement to police.
The motion judge denied the motion to suppress, finding Sherman's waiver of his Miranda rights was valid.
Following a trial, Sherman was convicted on all counts.
Sherman (appellant) appealed the convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgments of conviction.
Sherman (appellant) petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further appellate review, which was granted.

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 a suspect's waiver of their Miranda rights become invalid when police fail to inform the suspect that an attorney, representing the suspect on an unrelated matter, has requested to be present during the interrogation?

Opinions:

Majority - Hennessey, C.J.

Yes, a suspect's waiver of their Miranda rights becomes invalid under these circumstances. The failure of police to inform the defendant of an attorney's request to be present vitiates the defendant's waiver. The government bears a heavy burden to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver, and withholding such critical information prevents the suspect from making a fully informed choice. The court found that passing up an abstract offer for an unknown lawyer is fundamentally different from refusing to speak with an identified attorney who is actively seeking to provide assistance. The fact that the attorney was not yet formally appointed for the specific charges being investigated is a matter of form over substance, as the officer knew of the existing attorney-client relationship. Citing Commonwealth v. McKenna, the court held that the defendant was entitled to know of his counsel’s availability and, with that knowledge, make an intelligent and understanding choice about waiving his rights.

Dissenting - Nolan, J.

No, the waiver should not be automatically invalidated. The officer's failure to inform the suspect of the attorney's request should be considered as just one factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis to determine if the waiver was valid. The majority improperly isolates this single fact and makes it controlling, ignoring other circumstances that point to a voluntary waiver, such as the defendant being read his rights, not being under arrest, and having his father present when he signed the statement. This approach is inconsistent with the totality of the circumstances test used in analogous situations, like determining the voluntariness of consent for a warrantless search. The court should weigh all factors rather than create a rigid, per se rule of invalidity.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Massachusetts that provides greater protection for a suspect's right to counsel than the federal standard. By holding that a failure to inform a suspect of an attorney's attempts to provide assistance automatically invalidates a Miranda waiver, the court places an affirmative duty on police to convey this information. This shifts the focus from the suspect's invocation of rights to the police's obligation to not obstruct access to counsel. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for the prosecution to establish a valid waiver in situations where an attorney has made their availability known to law enforcement, thereby strengthening the role of defense counsel at the earliest stages of a criminal investigation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Sherman (1983)

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