Moran v. Burbine

Supreme Court of United States
475 U.S. 412 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Events occurring outside the presence of a suspect and unknown to him have no bearing on the validity of his waiver of Miranda rights. Police failure to inform a suspect that an attorney is attempting to contact him, or police deception of that attorney, does not invalidate an otherwise voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.

Facts:

On March 3, 1977, Mary Jo Hickey was found severely beaten and died three weeks later.
Months later, police arrested Brian Burbine in connection with an unrelated burglary.
While investigating the burglary, police developed information that Burbine, known as 'Butch', was responsible for Hickey's death.
While Burbine was in custody, his sister contacted the Public Defender's Office to get him a lawyer for the burglary charge, unaware of the murder suspicion.
Attorney Allegra Munson from the Public Defender's Office telephoned the police station, stated she would represent Burbine if he were to be questioned, and was told by an unidentified officer that police were 'through with him for the night'.
Burbine was unaware of his sister's efforts to retain counsel and of Attorney Munson's phone call.
Less than an hour after Munson's call, police began interrogating Burbine about the Hickey murder.
After being read his Miranda rights, Burbine signed three separate written waivers and provided three written statements confessing to the murder.

Procedural Posture:

Brian Burbine moved to suppress his confessions in the Rhode Island state trial court, but the motion was denied.
Following a jury trial, Burbine was convicted of first-degree murder.
Burbine, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which affirmed the conviction.
Burbine then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which was denied.
Burbine, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the confessions should have been suppressed.
Moran, the petitioner representing the state, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. 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 a suspect's waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights, made after receiving Miranda warnings, become invalid when police fail to inform him that an attorney retained by his family is trying to contact him and mislead the attorney about their intent to interrogate him?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

No. A suspect's waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights is not invalidated by police failure to inform him of an attorney's efforts to contact him or by police deception of that attorney. The validity of a waiver depends on the suspect's state of mind and comprehension, assessed through a two-part inquiry: whether the waiver was voluntary, and whether it was knowing and intelligent. Events occurring outside the suspect's presence and entirely unknown to him can have no bearing on his capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right. The Constitution does not require police to supply a suspect with all information that might be useful to his decision-making process; full comprehension of the rights to remain silent and request an attorney is sufficient to dispel coercion. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached because formal adversarial proceedings had not been initiated. Lastly, while the police conduct was distasteful, it did not rise to the level of a due process violation that 'shocks the sensibilities of civilized society'.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. The police deception and failure to inform Burbine of his attorney's availability renders his waiver invalid. The majority's decision embraces incommunicado interrogation and sanctions police deception, which is contrary to the principles of an accusatorial system of justice. A waiver cannot be truly knowing and intelligent when police conceal the critical fact that a specific attorney is immediately available and seeking to provide assistance; this is a form of trickery that Miranda condemns. There is a profound difference between a suspect waiving an abstract right to an unknown lawyer and refusing to speak with an identified attorney who has been retained and is actively trying to help. The police misconduct effectively drove a wedge between Burbine and his attorney, violating his Fifth Amendment rights and the fundamental fairness required by the Due Process Clause.

Analysis:

Moran v. Burbine significantly clarifies the scope of a valid Miranda waiver, focusing the inquiry exclusively on the suspect's subjective awareness and understanding of their rights, rather than on external events or the objective conduct of the police. By ruling that information unknown to the suspect is irrelevant to the waiver analysis, the Court prevented an expansion of Miranda and prioritized a clear, bright-line rule for law enforcement. This decision reinforces the formalistic attachment point for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (initiation of adversarial proceedings) and limits due process challenges to only the most egregious police misconduct. It effectively shifts the burden onto the suspect to unequivocally invoke their rights, while allowing states to establish stricter standards for police conduct through state law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Moran v. Burbine (1986)

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

Premium Feature