Minnick v. Mississippi
498 U.S. 146 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a suspect in custody invokes their Fifth Amendment right to counsel for custodial interrogation, police may not reinitiate interrogation in the absence of counsel, regardless of whether the suspect has been given an opportunity to consult with an attorney.
Facts:
- Robert Minnick and James Dyess escaped from a Mississippi county jail and broke into a mobile home.
- When the owner, Ellis Thomas, and a companion, Lamar Lafferty, arrived, Minnick and Dyess killed them using stolen weapons.
- Minnick was arrested in California four months later on a Mississippi warrant.
- The day after his arrest, FBI agents began to interrogate Minnick, who then requested a lawyer by stating, 'Come back Monday when I have a lawyer,' at which point the interview ceased.
- An appointed attorney met with Minnick on two or three occasions over the weekend.
- On Monday, a Mississippi deputy sheriff, J.C. Denham, reinitiated interrogation with Minnick without his counsel present.
- After being read his rights again, Minnick described the murders, claiming his accomplice had forced him to participate.
- Minnick testified that jailers told him he 'have to talk' to the Mississippi deputy and could not refuse.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Minnick was tried for murder in a Mississippi state trial court.
- The trial court denied Minnick's motion to suppress the confession he made to Deputy Sheriff Denham.
- Minnick was convicted on two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death.
- Minnick appealed his conviction to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Minnick's Fifth Amendment right to counsel was satisfied because counsel had been 'made available' to him before he confessed to Denham.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
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 protection against police-initiated interrogation established under Edwards v. Arizona end once the suspect, who has invoked their right to counsel, consults with an attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. The Fifth Amendment protection against police-initiated interrogation does not end once the suspect consults with an attorney. The rule established in Edwards v. Arizona requires that once an accused requests counsel, interrogation must cease and cannot be reinitiated by police without counsel actually present. The court reasoned that the purpose of the Edwards rule is to protect suspects from the coercive pressures of custodial interrogation, which do not disappear merely because the suspect has had a preliminary consultation with a lawyer. The Court clarified that the phrase 'until counsel has been made available' in Edwards means more than just the opportunity to consult; it means counsel must be present during questioning. Adopting a contrary rule would undermine the 'clear and unequivocal' nature of the Edwards protection, create ambiguity about what constitutes adequate consultation, and potentially interfere with the attorney-client privilege.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The irrebuttable presumption against waiver established in Edwards should cease to apply after a suspect has consulted with an attorney. The dissent argued that the Edwards rule is a prophylactic measure designed to protect suspects who may be ignorant of their rights and feel isolated in a hostile environment. Once a suspect has actually spoken with an attorney, these concerns are alleviated; the suspect knows they have an advocate and has likely been advised to remain silent. Therefore, after consultation, the state should be permitted to demonstrate a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel under the traditional Zerbst standard. The majority's holding creates a perpetual prohibition on police-initiated questioning that is not required by the Constitution and unnecessarily impedes law enforcement's ability to obtain voluntary confessions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the Miranda protections by creating a durable, bright-line rule under Edwards v. Arizona. By holding that consultation with an attorney does not terminate the prohibition on police-initiated interrogation, the Court prevents a 'cat-and-mouse' game where police could repeatedly attempt to question a suspect after each meeting with counsel. This ruling solidifies the role of the attorney as the mandatory intermediary for any police-initiated communication once the right to counsel is invoked. It prioritizes the prevention of coercion and the clarity of the rule over a more flexible, case-by-case analysis of voluntariness, thereby providing clear guidance to law enforcement and lower courts.
Unlock the full brief for Minnick v. Mississippi