Escobeda Bright Line Rule
Once a suspect has invoked his rt to counsel in custodial interrogation, he may not be subjected to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him unless he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations w/ the police. Invocation of counsel has to be clear. Wishy-washy words won't preserve the right. "Do you think I should talk to a lawyer" or "maybe I should talk to a lawyer" might not be sufficient. Best way: "I want to to talk to a lawyer before anyone questions me further."

When counsel is requested, interrogation must cease, and officials may not reinitiate interrogation w/out counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his atty.
    i.e, once defendant invokes rt to counsel, police cannot interrogate unless
            - defendant initiates, or
            - counsel present

Confessions (see handout)
3 different sources for unlawfully obtained confessions by police

1) 5th amendment
    Due Process "voluntariness test"
    Totality of Circumstances (2 factors: *character of accused and *details of interrogation)
            Are the techniques the police used compatible w/ the presumption of innocence?
            Prosecution has burden to show confession voluntary "beyond a reasonable doubt"

2) 6th amendment
    Right to Counsel
    Attaches at critical stages in the proceedings
    Specific for the crime you've been charged with

3) 5th amendment
    Privilege against self-incrimination (burden of gov to prove) Miranda
    Miranda 5th amendment rt to counsel must be invoked

On appeal - coerced confession is subject to the harmless error test! It used to be held to an absolute standard, meaning that if the court found the confession was coerced (and, of course, the confession was used at trial) then there was a reversal of the conviction and a new trial ordered w/out the confession being used.

However, the supreme court changed its mind and now the standard is tougher for defendants. Even if the court finds the confession was coerced, there will not be a reversal of the conviction unless the defendant can also show that his confessions *prejudiced* him. In other words, if the confession had not been used at trial, is it likely he would have been found not guilty or found guilty of a lesser offense? Appellate courts determine whether the defendant was prejudiced (i.e., whether the error was harmless) by looking at all the other evidence stacked against a defendant.

Escobedo Rule --> pre-indictment
6th amend rt to counsel attaches (and if confession, then illegal and suppression when all five):
(but note: Escobedo originally decided as a 6th amendment case, but sup ct later said escobedo is a 5th am case, not 6th)

1) changes from investigative stage to accusatory stage (focus on suspect)

2) when purpose is to elicit a confession

3) Def requests to see an atty

4) Police Deny request

5) Police do not warn Def that he has a rt to remain silent

~end~