Invocation Of Right To Counsel

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

• State v. Carter
  172 So. 3d 538· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the suspect's statements did not constitute an unequivocal request for counsel or an invocation of the right to remain silent, thus the suppression order was erroneous.
• United States v. Wright
  962 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-27 ·cited 12×
  A defense attorney's request at a plea hearing to be present during any interviews of her client does not trigger the Miranda-Edwards rule for subsequent custodial interrogations about unrelated offenses.
• Cervi v. Kemp
  855 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was obtained in violation of the rule established in Edwards v. Arizona, requiring reversal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Cade Allen Plazinich v. Lynaugh
  843 F.2d 836· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a police officer's statement to a suspect about his co-defendant's suicide attempt, after the suspect had invoked his right to counsel and interrogation had ceased, did not constitute 'interrogation' under Edwards v. Arizona, and therefore did not violate the
• United States v. Rory Tyree McELROY
  697 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the defendant's invocation of his Miranda rights, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A), prejudiced the defendant and deprived him of a fair trial.
• Porter v. State
  410 So. 2d 164· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-17 ·cited 12×
  Wallace Jerome Porter was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping after a jury trial and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that Porter's confessions were involuntary due t
• United States v. Williams
  556 F.2d 65· D.C. Cir.· 1977-04-28 ·cited 12×
• Combs v. Wingo
  465 F.2d 96· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a confession obtained after a suspect invoked his right to remain silent and requested an attorney is inadmissible as involuntary under the Fifth Amendment.
• Desmond Gilbert v. State
  104 So. 3d 1123· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-11-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because detectives interrogated the appellant after he invoked his right to counsel.
• State v. Jayime Soto
  954 So. 2d 686· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's suppression of statements made by the defendant after he clearly requested a lawyer during a police interview.
• State v. Stanley
  754 So. 2d 869· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-04-12 ·cited 10×
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court order suppressing statements obtained from Sarah Stanley during custodial interrogation without her retained attorney present. The court affirms, holding that Stanley's right to counsel under the Florida Constitution attached when she re
• Robinson v. Borg
  918 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 10×
  A suspect's statement, "I have to get me a good lawyer, man. Can I make a phone call?", made during custodial interrogation, constitutes an unequivocal request for counsel, requiring cessation of all questioning.
• United States v. Boyer
  914 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search of a package by law enforcement was reasonable because it duplicated a prior private search, and statements made by the defendant after a limited invocation of his right to counsel were admissible.
• Avila v. State
  545 So. 2d 450· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's videotaped confession, obtained after he invoked his right to counsel, was reversible error.
• The People OF the Territory OF Guam v. Ichiyasu
  838 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the taxi and probable cause to arrest the appellant, and that the appellant's statement was admissible as it was not the product of interrogation.
• United States v. Webb
  633 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly allowed the admission of a confession and consent to search obtained in violation of the suspect's right to counsel.
• Baptiste v. State
  179 So. 3d 502· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-11-24 ·cited 9×
  Peter Baptiste appealed his convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to rob, challenging the admission of incriminating statements he made to police. The court reversed because officers misrepresented the law by promising Baptiste he could only be charged with simple robbery
• Youngblood v. State
  9 So. 3d 717· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-04-22 ·cited 9×
  Tony Youngblood was convicted of methamphetamine trafficking after he initially invoked his right to counsel during police interrogation, but then agreed to speak with officers after they suggested he could help his girlfriend avoid criminal charges. The appellate court reversed
• United States v. De la Jara
  973 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress statements made after the defendant invoked his right to counsel, and that the admission of an attorney-client privileged letter was not reversible error because the privilege was waived.
• Bell v. State
  595 So. 2d 232· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court vacated the defendant's conviction and sentence, remanding for a new trial because the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his confession, which was obtained after he invoked his right to counsel.
• Terry v. LeFEVRE
  862 F.2d 409· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession and the murder weapon were not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights or through coercion, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Davis v. Puckett
  857 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the police may have violated Davis's right to counsel by reinitiating interrogation, federal habeas relief was barred by Mississippi's procedural default rule. The court also found no constitutional violation regarding prosecutorial comments or the speed
• United States v. Colon
  835 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an inculpatory statement made spontaneously by a defendant, even after invoking the right to counsel and during a delay in arraignment, is admissible if it is not the result of interrogation or its functional equivalent.
• State v. Evans
  462 So. 2d 596· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The State appealed the suppression of incriminating statements made by Evans to a deputy sheriff after Evans had previously requested counsel but later initiated a second conversation and waived his right to counsel. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that when a s
• State v. Garcia
  422 So. 2d 926· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The Florida appellate court affirmed the suppression of Luis Garcia's murder confession despite procedural confusion about whether the trial court could consider Garcia's trial testimony, because the confession was unlawfully obtained in violation of Garcia's Fifth and Sixth Amen
• Silling v. State
  414 So. 2d 1182· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-06-11 ·cited 8×
  Lynn Pitts Silling was convicted of burglary with intent to assault and aggravated battery with a firearm. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that testimony about statements she made to jail personnel after invoking her right to counsel violated Ed
• McKENZIE v. State
  125 So. 3d 906· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-04-24 ·cited 7×
  John McKenzie appeals his conviction for armed sexual battery, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made during police interrogation. McKenzie claims the detectives violated his Miranda rights by continuing to question him after he requested a
• Krishna Gopal Maragh v. State
  905 So. 2d 207· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-04-20 ·cited 7×
  Krishna Gopal Maragh was convicted of two counts of armed robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the admissibility of his pre-trial statements to police, arguing they violated Miranda rights under the fact pattern established in Missou
• Sapp v. State
  660 So. 2d 1146· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-09-22 ·cited 7×
  Robert Sapp appeals convictions for attempted armed robbery and first-degree murder, challenging the admission of custodial statements made after he signed a claim of rights form invoking his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at his initial appearance. The court affirms the convic
• United States v. Viento Lynn Childs
  944 F.2d 491· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-06 ·cited 7×
  A joint occupant's voluntary consent to search is sufficient to justify a warrantless search, even if the other joint occupant is physically present and has also been arrested.
• Alexander v. State OF Conn.
  917 F.2d 747· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 7×
  The admission of Alexander's confession to his friend, made while in custody but without awareness of the friend's cooperation with police, was not an error violating his Fifth Amendment rights, as it did not occur in a police-dominated atmosphere and was not a product of custodi
• Martinez v. State
  564 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 7×
  Martinez was arrested for murder and gave multiple confessions after being read Miranda rights four times. The trial court denied his motion to suppress statements, finding his question about counsel was not an invocation of his right to counsel. The Florida Supreme Court reverse
• Leshannon Jerome Shelly v. State
  262 So. 3d 1· Fla.· 2018-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction of LeShannon Jerome Shelly for first-degree murder, holding that detectives violated his Miranda rights by continuing to interrogate him after he unequivocally invoked his right to silence. The court established that the Welch sta
• Keenon Lamar Rhodes v. State
  219 So. 3d 251· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-05-19 ·cited 6×
  Keenon Lamar Rhodes appeals his conviction for burglary while armed, drug possession, and resisting an officer. The court reversed his conviction because the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made during a custodial interrogation where he clearly invo
• Wilder v. State
  40 So. 3d 804· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-07-07 ·cited 6×
  Isaac Wilder appeals his murder and theft convictions on grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police after invoking his right to counsel. The court reversed, holding that police violated Edwards v. Arizona by reintiating custo
• Dubon v. State
  982 So. 2d 746· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-06-02 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court reversed first-degree murder conviction because police violated defendant's right to remain silent by continuing interrogation after he stated three times 'I have nothing to say,' rendering his subsequent confession involuntary.
• McNAMEE v. State
  906 So. 2d 1171· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-06-29 ·cited 6×
  Paul McNamee was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, burglary of a dwelling while armed, and grand theft of a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of motions to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle stop a
• Ahedo v. State
  842 So. 2d 868· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-01-17 ·cited 6×
  Joseph Ahedo appeals his armed burglary conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress two confessions and raising competency concerns at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the suppression ruling but remanded for resentencing because the trial co
• Borrell v. State
  733 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the public safety exception to Miranda applies to both pre- and post-Miranda statements and evidence when there is an objectively reasonable need to protect the public from immediate danger associated with a weapon.
• State v. Ferrer
  507 So. 2d 674· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The State appeals a suppression order excluding the defendant's confessions. The court reverses, holding that the defendant's reinitiation of contact with police after invoking counsel, combined with fresh Miranda warnings and valid waiver, cured any constitutional defect, and th
• del Duca v. State
  422 So. 2d 40· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-10-15 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a vehicular homicide conviction because the defendant's incriminating statements were obtained in violation of the Edwards v. Arizona rule: after the defendant invoked his right to counsel through his attorney, police reinitiated inte
• Henthorne v. State
  409 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-01-08 ·cited 6×
  Daniel Henthorne appeals his armed robbery conviction, arguing his confession was involuntary. The court agrees that the police officer's promise not to charge him with two other robberies if he identified his coperpetrator rendered the confession involuntary and inadmissible, th
• United States v. Little
  647 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 6×
  Statements made by a suspect to law enforcement after unequivocally requesting counsel and prior to interrogation are presumed to be the product of compulsion and must be excluded.
• Amato Scott v. State
  151 So. 3d 567· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-12-22 ·cited 5×
  Amato Scott was convicted of second-degree murder, but the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial after finding that two incriminating statements he made to police were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The court determined that t
• Isom v. State
  819 So. 2d 154· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-04-17 ·cited 5×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a conviction, holding that a confession obtained after a police officer gave an evasive and misleading answer to a suspect's question about needing a lawyer was inadmissible. The court found the officer's response violated the suspect
• Smith v. State
  699 So. 2d 629· Fla.· 1997-07-03 ·cited 5×
  Ronald Smith was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, and conspiracy following a violent robbery and killing of two victims in 1991. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on all counts but reversed his
• Allen v. State
  579 So. 2d 200· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-04-19 ·cited 5×
  Earl Allen appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion despite a pending direct appeal, and remanding two viable ineffective assistance o
• Leshannon Jerome Shelly v. State
  199 So. 3d 973· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-06-01 ·cited 4×
  Leshannon Shelly appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a videotaped confession. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Shelly reinitiated contact with police after invok
• Lamont Davis v. State
  153 So. 3d 360· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-12-17 ·cited 4×
  Lamont Davis was convicted of felony murder, armed burglary, and other crimes in connection with a 2010 home robbery and killing in Port St. Lucie, Florida. He appealed arguing Miranda violations in his confession, improper use of suppressed statements in a search warrant affidav
• O'Brien v. State
  56 So. 3d 884· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-03-16 ·cited 4×
  Kenneth James O'Brien appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child, challenging the admission of his confession obtained after he invoked his right to counsel. The First District Court of Appeal reversed his convictions, finding that law enforcement violated the Edwards