Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Minnick v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFifth AmendmentMirandaRight to CounselCustodial InterrogationFifth AmendmentMirandaEdwards rule

Facts

While in custody in a San Diego jail, Minnick was interviewed by FBI agents, advised of his Miranda rights, and stated, "Come back Monday when I have a lawyer," adding that he would make a more complete statement with his lawyer present. After that interview, an appointed attorney met with Minnick on two or three occasions. On Monday, Deputy Sheriff Denham came to question Minnick, advised him of his rights, and obtained a confession during a police-initiated formal interview at which counsel was not present. Minnick had not initiated that interview, and the confession was later used against him at trial.

Issue

Does Edwards' prohibition on police-initiated custodial interrogation after a suspect requests counsel end once the suspect has consulted with an attorney? More specifically, may police reinitiate interrogation without counsel present merely because counsel has been made available for consultation?

Rule

When a suspect in custody requests counsel, interrogation must cease, and officials may not reinitiate interrogation unless counsel is present at the questioning, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Consultation with counsel alone does not terminate or suspend Edwards protection.

🔒

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 Phoenix, police arrested Daniel Ruiz for armed robbery and gave him Miranda warnings at the station. Daniel said, "I want a lawyer before any more questions," and the interview stopped. The next afternoon, after no further contact from Daniel, detectives returned, readvised him of his rights, and obtained an incriminating statement without any lawyer in the room.

Is Daniel's statement most likely admissible?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, once a suspect in custody requests counsel, interrogation must cease. Officials may not reinitiate custodial questioning unless counsel is present at the questioning, unless the accused himself initiates further communication. A valid waiver cannot be shown merely by the suspect's response to later police-initiated questioning, even after renewed Miranda warnings.