Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Montejo v. Louisiana

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselPolice InterrogationWaiverStare DecisisSixth AmendmentMiranda

Facts

After his arrest, Montejo waived his Miranda rights and gave videotaped statements that eventually included an admission that he had shot the victim during a burglary. At a Louisiana 72-hour hearing, the judge ordered the Office of Indigent Defender appointed to represent him, and the minute entry reflected that appointment. Later that same day, detectives approached Montejo at prison, sought to take him to locate the murder weapon, read him his Miranda rights again, and obtained his agreement; during the excursion he wrote an inculpatory letter of apology to the victim's widow. His appointed lawyer did not meet him until after the excursion, and the letter was admitted at trial over objection.

Issue

Whether Michigan v. Jackson barred police from initiating interrogation after counsel had been appointed for Montejo at his preliminary hearing, even though he had not affirmatively requested counsel there. More broadly, whether Jackson should continue to govern Sixth Amendment waivers after counsel appointment.

Rule

Michigan v. Jackson is overruled. After the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, police may seek a defendant's waiver of the right to have counsel present during interrogation, and a waiver is not presumed invalid merely because counsel has been appointed or because the defendant is represented; Miranda warnings generally suffice to make such a waiver knowing and intelligent. If, however, the defendant clearly invokes his right to counsel when approached for custodial interrogation, the Edwards rule applies and police-initiated interrogation must cease unless the defendant initiates further communication.

🔒

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 Toledo, Ohio, Malik Turner was indicted for armed robbery. At his first appearance, the judge found him indigent and automatically appointed the Franklin County Defense Office. The next afternoon, detectives met Malik in jail, gave full Miranda warnings, and Malik agreed to answer questions without asking for a lawyer.

If Malik moves to suppress his statements solely because counsel had already been appointed, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that there is no presumption that a represented defendant’s waiver is invalid merely because counsel was appointed. After attachment of the Sixth Amendment right, police may still approach the defendant for interrogation and seek a waiver. Miranda warnings generally suffice to render that waiver knowing and intelligent, absent a clear invocation of counsel at the interrogation or some separate defect in voluntariness.