Michigan v. Jackson
| Michigan v. Jackson | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 9, 1985 Decided April 1, 1986 |
|
| Full case name | Michigan v. Robert Bernard Jackson; Michigan v. Rudy Bladel |
| Citations | 475 U.S. 625 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| The Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires that if police initiate an interrogation after a defendant's assertion of his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, any waiver of that right for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Burger |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Powell, O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
|
Overruled by
|
|
| Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) | |
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.
This decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), by a 5–4 decision.
Respondent Rudy Bladel had been convicted of murdering three railroad employees at the Amtrak Station in Jackson, Michigan, on December 31, 1978.
Bladel, a disgruntled former employee, had been arrested three months later in Indiana and extradited to Michigan. He had agreed to talk to the police without counsel. At his arraignment he requested that counsel be appointed for him because he was indigent. The detective in charge of the investigation was present at the arraignment. A notice of appointment was then mailed to a law firm, but before the law firm received the notice, two police officers interviewed Bladel in the county jail and obtained a confession from him. Prior to that questioning, the officers had advised Bladel of his Miranda rights. Although Bladel had inquired about his representation several times since the arraignment, he was not told that a law firm had been appointed to represent him.
...
Wikipedia