Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Brewer v. Williams

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentright to counseldeliberate elicitationwaiverSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentright to counsel

Facts

Before police transported Williams from Davenport to Des Moines, a warrant had issued, he had been arraigned, and he had consulted lawyers in both cities who instructed that he was not to be questioned until he met counsel in Des Moines; police agreed not to question him during the trip. During the drive, Detective Leaming, knowing Williams was represented and religious, gave the "Christian burial speech" designed to prompt Williams to reveal the victim's location. Williams had several times said he would tell the whole story after seeing his lawyer in Des Moines, but after Leaming's remarks he directed officers to the victim's shoes, blanket, and body. At trial, the resulting evidence was admitted over objection.

Issue

After adversary proceedings had begun and counsel had been obtained, did police violate Williams' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from him during the trip in the absence of counsel? If so, did Williams waive that right?

Rule

The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that once judicial proceedings have been initiated, an accused is entitled to legal representation when the government interrogates or deliberately elicits incriminating information from him. Waiver of that right is not presumed; the State bears a heavy burden to prove an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, and courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, police arrested Omar Bennett on suspicion of arson and questioned him at the station before any complaint, indictment, information, preliminary hearing, or arraignment. During the interview, an officer made remarks designed to get Omar to reveal where he had hidden accelerants, and Omar did so without counsel present.

Under the governing rule, what is the strongest argument for admitting Omar's statement over a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel objection?

Explanation. The Sixth Amendment rule applies at or after the initiation of judicial proceedings, such as formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. If police acted before any such proceeding began, the Brewer rule does not bar the statement on Sixth Amendment grounds. Brewer specifically ties the right to counsel to the commencement of adversary judicial proceedings, and rejects the ideas that direct questioning is required or that the right depends on a contemporaneous request.