State v. Garrison
2006 Alas. App. LEXIS 18, 128 P.3d 741, 2006 WL 334179 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only upon the commencement of formal adversary criminal proceedings, not during the pre-charge investigative stage, even if police know a suspect has retained counsel. Furthermore, a confession is not considered involuntary due to police threats if the inculpatory statements were made before the alleged threats occurred and the totality of the circumstances shows the suspect's will was not overborne.
Facts:
- On November 1, 2000, Paul Clinton was found shot to death.
- Police interviewed Antonio M. Garrison on November 2 and 4, and he denied involvement.
- On November 7, Garrison retained attorney Chad Holt.
- On December 12, detectives learned Garrison had retained Holt after Garrison declined to be interviewed on Holt's advice.
- Holt later left a message for detectives stating that Garrison would not make any statements.
- In January 2001, police recovered a handgun pawned by Garrison's sister that ballistics testing suggested could be the murder weapon.
- On January 18, 2001, detectives went to Garrison's home and interviewed him without providing a Miranda warning.
- During this interview, Garrison admitted he found Clinton dead, saw the handgun, and took it from the scene in a panic because he was on probation, but he consistently denied killing Clinton.
- After this admission, detectives told Garrison that if he did not provide more information, they would present the case as an intentional murder to the district attorney and that it would be 'worse' for him.
- Garrison then agreed to a polygraph, drove himself to the police station, was given Miranda warnings which he waived, and was interviewed again before leaving.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Antonio M. Garrison for murder, tampering with evidence, and other related crimes.
- In the superior court (the trial court), Garrison filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his January 18 statements to police.
- The superior court judge granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the statements were taken in violation of Garrison's right to counsel and were involuntary.
- The State of Alaska, as the appellant, petitioned the Court of Appeals of Alaska for review of the superior court's suppression order.
- The Court of Appeals granted review.
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 questioning a non-custodial suspect who has not been formally charged, but who is known by police to have retained an attorney, violate the suspect's Sixth Amendment right to counsel or render his subsequent admissions involuntary under the Alaska Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Judge.
No, the police questioning did not violate Garrison's right to counsel nor were his statements involuntary. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions, attaches only upon the commencement of formal adversary criminal proceedings, such as an indictment or formal charge. Because Garrison had not been charged at the time of the January 18 interview, the proceeding was purely investigative, and his Sixth Amendment right had not yet attached. The court rejected the argument that police knowledge of his legal representation barred them from contacting him, declining to adopt New York's broader rule from People v. Skinner. Furthermore, his statements were not involuntary. A confession induced by threats is only involuntary if the threats precede the confession. Here, Garrison's crucial admission—that he took the gun from the scene—was made before the detectives made the statements that Garrison characterized as threatening. Finally, under the totality of the circumstances, Garrison's will was not overborne; he consistently denied the murder and offered the story about taking the gun as an exculpatory explanation for his connection to it, demonstrating a calculated effort rather than a coerced confession.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a strict, formalistic trigger for the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in Alaska, limiting it to the post-charge stage of a criminal case. It provides clear guidance that police may continue to question a represented suspect pre-indictment, so long as the interrogation is non-custodial. The case also provides a critical clarification for voluntariness claims, establishing that threats or coercion must precede the confession to be considered its cause. This holding emphasizes that a suspect's own strategic, partial admissions, aimed at deflecting blame for a more serious crime, can serve as powerful evidence that their will was not, in fact, overborne by police tactics.
