Invocation Of Right To Counsel

164 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Traylor v. State
  596 So. 2d 957· Fla.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 651×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether confessions obtained during police interrogation violated the state constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to counsel, ultimately finding the Alabama confession was unlawfully obtained but the error was harmless, while app
• Fitzpatrick v. State
  900 So. 2d 495· Fla.· 2005-01-27 ·cited 245×
  Michael Peter Fitzpatrick was convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery in the stabbing death of Laura Romines. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his murder conviction and death sentence, finding overwhelming evidence of guilt including DNA evidence and eyewitness test
• State v. Glatzmayer
  789 So. 2d 297· Fla.· 2001-05-03 ·cited 229×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers must answer clear questions about a suspect's rights during custodial interrogation but need not act as legal advisors. When Glatzmayer asked officers whether they thought he should get a lawyer, the officers' response
• Waterhouse v. State
  429 So. 2d 301· Fla.· 1983-02-17 ·cited 84×
  Robert Waterhouse was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Deborah Kammerer in St. Petersburg, Florida and sentenced to death. He appealed challenging the admission of evidence and the propriety of the death sentence, which the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in full.
• United States v. Bosby
  675 F.2d 1174· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 82×
  The court held that evidence obtained from a valid search warrant was admissible, even if preceded by an illegal search, provided the illegal search did not taint the warrant. Statements made after invoking the right to remain silent were admissible if obtained after a proper bre
• Sapp v. State
  690 So. 2d 581· Fla.· 1997-03-13 ·cited 76×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a suspect cannot effectively invoke their Miranda right to counsel through a claim of rights form signed before custodial interrogation has begun or is imminent. The Court rejected both federal and state constitutional arguments for anticipator
• United States v. Obregon
  748 F.2d 1371· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, the detention was lawful, consent to search was voluntary, and statements made after invoking counsel were admissible because the defendant initiated further communication.
• Long v. State
  517 So. 2d 664· Fla.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 73×
  Robert Joe Long was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death based on a confession obtained during police interrogation. The Florida Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that police violated Miranda and Edwards by continuing to
• United States v. Hinckley
  672 F.2d 115· D.C. Cir.· 1982-02-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that statements obtained from Hinckley after he invoked his right to counsel were inadmissible under Miranda, and that the seizure and reading of his personal papers violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Durocher v. State
  596 So. 2d 997· Fla.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 53×
  Michael Durocher appealed his conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments that his confession to a second murder violated his Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights and that prosecut
• Walker v. State
  957 So. 2d 560· Fla.· 2007-05-03 ·cited 49×
  Robert Shannon Walker, II was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated battery in the brutal beating and execution-style killing of David Hamman during a drug-related dispute. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Walker's convictions and death sentence, rejectin
• Walton v. State
  847 So. 2d 438· Fla.· 2003-05-29 ·cited 48×
  Jason Dirk Walton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 challenging his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and three death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, fi
• Everett v. State
  893 So. 2d 1278· Fla.· 2004-11-24 ·cited 46×
  Paul Everett was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and sexual battery in the rape and murder of Kelly Bailey. On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Everett raised five issues challenging his conviction and death sentence, including a Fifth Amendment claim regarding po
• United States v. Thierman
  678 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the police conduct constituted interrogation, thus violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights after he invoked his right to counsel.
• United States v. Cherry
  733 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights because the FBI agents continued to interrogate him after he made an equivocal request for an attorney. Therefore, the confession should not have been admitted at trial.
• Cannady v. State
  427 So. 2d 723· Fla.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 44×
  Michael Cannady was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of William Carrier. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding his confession admissible despite claims it was involuntary and given without proper waiver of counsel rights
• United States v. Grant
  549 F.2d 942· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights because interrogation continued after he invoked his right to counsel.
• United States ex rel. Miguel A. Espinoza v. J.W. Fairman
  813 F.2d 117· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 39×
  The court held that while Espinoza had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel for the murder charge, his prior invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at his weapons charge arraignment remained in effect during subsequent custodial interrogation for the murder, rendering
• United States v. Jardina
  747 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the defendant's inculpatory statements, the counterfeit bills, and evidence of Texas activities were admissible, and that no unreasonable delay occurred before his appearance before a magistrate.
• Deguster Blake Zeigler v. State
  471 So. 2d 172· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-18 ·cited 36×
  Where a defendant has invoked his right to counsel and subsequently given a statement without counsel present and without a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right, the statement must be suppressed even if a written waiver form was signed earlier, and the defendant must be dis
• Kyser v. State
  533 So. 2d 285· Fla.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that admitting statements obtained after the defendant invoked his right to counsel violated his Fifth Amendment rights, requiring a new trial. The court also held that escape should not have been presented as an underlying felony for felony murder.
• Kimon Black v. State
  59 So. 3d 340· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-04-27 ·cited 34×
  Kimon Black appeals his convictions for two first-degree murders, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made after he invoked his right to counsel during custodial interrogation. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding tha
• Lukehart v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  50 F.4th 32· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-26 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the Florida Supreme Court's determination regarding the petitioner's Miranda rights was potentially unreasonable, particularly concerning the custody analysis, but ultimately found that Miranda warnings were not required because the petitioner was n
• United States v. Gomez
  927 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after the defendant requested counsel, and following police-initiated discussion of sentencing and cooperation, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Scalf
  708 F.2d 1540· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's confession, obtained after he invoked his right to counsel, was inadmissible, and the admission of the gun, while potentially admissible on other grounds, did not cure the error requiring a new trial.
• Kelley v. United States
  236 F.2d 746· D.C. Cir.· 1956-07-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's evasive response to an accusation, after initially invoking his right to counsel, did not constitute an admission and therefore the accusation was inadmissible hearsay.
• Berghuis v. Thompkins
  6th Cir.· 2010-06-01 ·cited 25×
  The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
• United States v. Velasquez
  885 F.2d 1076· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while voluntariness of a waiver is subject to plenary review, a trial court's direct exposure to the evidence and the defendant can provide valuable insight, warranting a remand for its determination.
• Tyson L. Chaffin v. State
  121 So. 3d 608· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-08-14 ·cited 23×
  Tyson Chaffin appeals his convictions for second-degree murder and tampering with evidence following the fatal shooting of his father. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the murder conviction and the denial of his suppression motion, but reversed the tampering convictio
• Towne v. Dugger
  899 F.2d 1104· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a suspect's question to an officer about whether he should get a lawyer constitutes an equivocal request for counsel, requiring further questioning to cease until the request is clarified.
• State v. Brown
  592 So. 2d 308· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-12-24 ·cited 20×
  This case reviews whether a defendant's confession was unlawfully obtained after he invoked his right to counsel. The court affirmed the suppression of the confession, finding that the police officer's continued discussion of the case constituted an interrogation that elicited an
• State v. Padron
  425 So. 2d 644· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-01-25 ·cited 20×
  The State appealed a trial court's orders suppressing both physical evidence (marijuana and a submachine gun) and statements made by defendant Padrón following his arrest. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the search incident to arrest was valid under New York v. Belto
• Stumes v. Solem
  671 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge holds that the defendant's statements were voluntary and admissible, distinguishing the case from Edwards v. Arizona.
• Son H. Fleming v. Kemp
  794 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 19×
  The concurring judge believes the issue of waiver of the right to counsel has sufficient merit to warrant a stay of execution for briefing and review.
• United States v. Comosona
  848 F.2d 1110· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that statements made by a defendant after invoking the right to counsel are admissible if the defendant initiates further communication and knowingly and intelligently waives that right, and that allegations of prejudice from preindictment and prearraignment delay
• United States v. Johnson
  812 F.2d 1329· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of an incriminating statement made after the defendant invoked his right to counsel was not harmless error.
• United States v. Packer
  730 F.2d 1151· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant, statements made during a subsequent interrogation with counsel present were admissible, and the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• Enriquez v. State
  449 So. 2d 845· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-03-20 ·cited 18×
  A 15-year-old appellant was convicted of second-degree murder of a state trooper, first-degree felony murder of a wrecker driver, and robbery after shooting both men during an armed carjacking attempt on the Florida Turnpike. The appellate court affirmed the murder convictions bu
• United States v. Gordon
  655 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Superintendent of Insurance's seizure and search of Gordon's records was constitutionally permissible due to exigent circumstances and statutory authority.
• Newton Carlton Slawson v. State
  619 So. 2d 255· Fla.· 1993-04-01 ·cited 16×
  Newton Slawson was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of killing an unborn child in connection with the deaths of the Wood family on April 11, 1989. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and four death sentences, rejecting Slawson's argumen
• Smith v. Endell
  860 F.2d 1528· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the defendant's statements did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, and therefore the confession should not be suppressed.
• United States v. Webb
  755 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 16×
  Two confessions obtained after the defendant invoked his right to counsel were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona and should have been suppressed.
• Berny Serrano v. State
  15 So. 3d 629· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-06-17 ·cited 15×
  Berny Serrano was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, home invasion robbery, and conspiracy to commit home invasion robbery in the killing of Jacob Langworthy during a failed robbery. On appeal, Serrano challenged the denial of three motions to suppress his incriminating st
• Craig v. State
  599 So. 2d 170· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-04-28 ·cited 15×
  Craig appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, challenging the admissibility of statements he made to police. The court affirms, holding that even if an initial statement was improperly obtained, it was harmless error in light of a s
• Tukes v. Dugger
  911 F.2d 508· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
• Griffin v. Lynaugh
  823 F.2d 856· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes Griffin effectively invoked his right to counsel, and the subsequent confession should be inadmissible because the police initiated the conversation.
• Lupe Hernandez Silva v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 14×
  A confession obtained after a defendant invoked his right to counsel, even if readvised of his rights, is inadmissible.
• Richmond E. Royal v. State
  347 So. 2d 742· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-06-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecution's use of the defendant's statement, which included a reference to his desire to speak with an attorney before discussing his actions, constituted a comment on his Fifth Amendment privilege and was fundamental error.
• Collins v. State
  4 So. 3d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-03-04 ·cited 13×
  William Collins appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing his trial counsel failed to seek suppression of a statement he made to police after making an unequivocal request for counsel. The appellate court agrees, finding t
• Cannady v. Dugger
  931 F.2d 752· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that subsequent statements made after the defendant requested an attorney were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and should have been suppressed.