Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Edwards (D) was arrested on a warrant for robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder. He was informed of his rights and stated he understood them and was willing to submit to questioning. D was told that another suspect had implicated him in the crime. D denied involvement and gave a taped statement regarding an alibi. Then he sought to make a deal. D was provided with the phone for the county attorney. D called but hung up after a few minutes, and then he requested an attorney before making a deal. Questioning ceased and the next morning D was visited by two detectives in county jail. D was informed that he had to talk with them. They gave him Miranda warnings and D stated he wanted to hear the implicating tape of the alleged accomplice. D indicated that he would make a statement but that it could not be taped. D then implicated himself in the crime. Prior to trial, D moved to suppress his confession on the ground that his Miranda rights had been violated when the officers returned to question him after he had invoked his right to counsel. The trial court initially granted the motion to suppress but reversed its ruling when presented with a supposedly controlling decision of a higher Arizona court. D was convicted and appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that D had invoked his right to remain silent and his right to counsel during the first interrogation. The court then ruled that D had waived those rights the next day. The conviction was upheld.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co