The U.S. Supreme Court in  Montejo v. Louisiana on 5/26/09 overruled a 23-year-old decision that bars police from questioning suspects without the presence of an appointed lawyer.

The court overturned  Michigan v. Jackson (1986) which held that once a suspect has asserted a right to counsel, any waiver of that right during police questioning is not valid unless the suspect initiated communication with them.

Petitioner Jesse Montejo waived his Miranda rights when police questioned him in connection with the robbery and murder of the owner of a dry cleaners.  He ultimately confessed to the crime.

At a later preliminary hearing, the judge ordered the appointment of a public defender. After another visit by detectives, Montejo wrote a letter of apology, which was introduced at his trial and challenged on appeal.

Justice Scalia wrote in the majority decision that when a court appoints counsel for an indigent defendant in the absence of any request on his part, there is no basis for a presumption that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel will be involuntary.

No reason exists to assume that a defendant like Montejo, who has done nothing at all to express his intentions with respect to his Sixth Amendment rights, would not be amenable to speaking with the police without having legal counsel present. And no reason exists to prohibit the police from inquiring.

Justice Scalia noted that three other Supreme Court decisions sufficiently protect defendants from being badgered into confessing:

• Miranda v. Arizona requires defendants to be advised of the right to a lawyer and the right against self-incrimination.
• Edwards v. Arizona  requires police interrogation to stop once a defendant invokes his right to have counsel present.
• Minnick v. Mississippi bars further police interrogation without the presence of counsel after the initial request for a lawyer.
• Under these cases, a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but ‘badgering’ by later requests is prohibited.

These are the types of suppression hearings requested by the New York criminal defense attorneys:

Mapp hearing: whether the police legally seized property from you.

Huntley hearing:  whether the police acted legally when and if you made a statement to them and whether the statement was voluntarily made.

Wade hearing:  whether the police used fair methods when they had witnesses identify you as having committed the crime.

Dunaway hearing:  whether the police acted legally in arresting you.

During the suppression hearing, testimony is taken from police officers and witnesses. Your lawyer will have a chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. You will also be given a chance to testify and call witnesses. If the prosecutor does not prove that the officers acted legally, or if you, through the evidence you present, prove that the police acted illegally, the judge will suppress the evidence.

If the judge suppresses the evidence, the prosecutor will not be able to introduce the evidence against you at your trial. If the prosecutor has no other evidence against you and does not intend to appeal the judge’s decision, he or she will most likely file a motion asking the judge to dismiss your case.