Id., 102 Ill.2d, at 372, 80 Ill.Dec., at 792, 466 N.E.2d, at 240. September 14, 1948 - September 23, 2020, James V Smith passed away on September 23, 2020 in Joliet, Illinois. But statements are rarely that clear; differences between certainty and hesitancy may well turn on the inflection with which words are spoken, especially where, as here, a seven-word statement is isolated from the statements surrounding it. 113 Ill.App.3d, at 309-310, 69 Ill.Dec., at 341-342, 447 N.E.2d, at 558-559 (emphasis in original). Post, at 101. PRIDE: I have a right to know if it is his correct name. Edwards v. Arizona, supra, 451 U.S., at 485, 486, n. 9, 101 S.Ct., at 1885, n. 9. The interrogation here bore a substantial similarity to the one condemned in Edwards v. Arizona, where the accused after requesting counsel was told that "he had" to talk to his interrogators. Others have attempted to define a threshold standard of clarity for such requests, and have held that requests falling below this threshold do not trigger the right to counsel. I'd like to do that," was announced affirmatively and without any tone of equivocation or inquiry. The interrogation here bore a substantial similarity to the one condemned in Edwards v. Arizona, where the accused after requesting counsel was told that "he had" to talk to his interrogators. Such subsequent statements are relevant only to the distinct question of waiver. Apparently knowing that this was not his real. In fact, between petitioner's initial statement and his indisputable expression of uncertainty, all that the officers did was advise him of the right to appointed counsel and asked him what he wanted to do: "Q. As Justice Simon noted in his dissent below, "with the possible exception of the word 'uh' the defendant's statement in this case was neither indecisive nor ambiguous: 'Uh, yeah, I'd like to do that.' * * * To say that prejudice can be established only by showing that the cross-examination, if pursued, would necessarily have brought out facts tending to discredit the testimony in chief, is to deny a substantial right and withdraw one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial. In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through "badger[ing]" or "overreaching"—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel's assistance. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from Syllabus. Smith was born in Blanket, Texas, on April 26, 1890.He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1915, and from the University of Chicago in 1922. Brownsburg, IN. Whether in the same interrogating session or in subsequent sessions, the so-called "flavor" of an accused's request for counsel cannot be dissipated by continued police questioning. Do you understand that as I gave it to you, Steve? See supra this page. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549; Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497. In neither of those cases was the informer a witness for the prosecution. On occasion, an accused's asserted request for counsel may be ambiguous or equivocal. PRIDE: I have a right to know if it is his correct name. We do not decide the circumstances in which an accused's request for counsel may be characterized as ambiguous or equivocal as a result of events preceding the request or of nuances inherent in the request itself, nor do we decide the consequences of such ambiguity or equivocation. See, e. g., Edwards v. Arizona, supra, at 484-485 (whether accused "expressed his desire" for, or "clearly asserted" his right to, the assistance of counsel); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 444-445 (whether accused "indicate[d] in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wish[ed] to consult with an attorney before speaking"). This is entirely consistent with applicable language in Miranda itself: "Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear.
After first reading petitioner the fourth Miranda right, he immediately sought clarification by asking petitioner pointedly, "Do you wish to talk with me at this time without a lawyer being present?" . * The record, however, raises serious doubt that this petitioner was denied any information that he did not already here, thus either rendering the error harmless or at least making the issue inappropriate for constitutional adjudication. The petitioner also testified that he used a $5 bill to purchase a cup of coffee, and must have received the marked money in his change. And the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District itself acknowledged that the statement "appears clear and unequivocal." Contrary to the holdings of the state courts, Edwards insists that having exercised his right on the [preceding day] to have counsel present during interrogation, he did not validly waive that right on the [next day].
102 Ill. 2d, at 369-370, 466 N. E. 2d, at 238. Id., at 310, 447 N. E. 2d, at 559. Specifically, the majority noted that although Smith stated "I'd like to do that" upon learning he had a right to his counsel's presence at the interrogation, Smith subsequently replied "Yeah and no, uh, I don't know what's what really," and "All right. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. Cf. See Oregon v. Bradshaw, supra, at 1044. The conflict among courts is addressed to the relevance of alleged ambiguities or equivocations that either (1) precede an accused's purported request for counsel, or (2) are part of the request itself. On cross-examination, this witness was asked whether "James Jordan" was his real name. Tr. Our other cases applying Edwards, Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. See 102 Ill. 2d, at 372-373, 466 N. E. 2d, at 240; id., at 375-377, 466 N. E. 2d, at 241-242 (Simon, J., dissenting).3 We need not resolve this conflict in the instant case, however, because the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court must be reversed irrespective of which standard is applied. Nor are this Court's decisions in McCray v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, and Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. Edwards v. Arizona, supra, at 485, 486, n. 9. The Court also assumes that the statement, "Uh, yeah. In Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687, this Court, almost 40 years ago, unanimously reversed a federal conviction because the trial judge had sustained objections to questions by the defense seeking to elicit the "place of residence" of a prosecution witness over the insistence of defense counsel that "the jury was entitled to know who the witness is, where he lives and what his business is.'" You either have [to agree ] to talk to me this time without a lawyer being present and if you do agree to talk with me without a lawyer being present you can stop at any time you want to. 230). See, e.g., People v. Krueger, 82 Ill.2d 305, 311, 45 Ill.Dec. on his own terms and as if the defendant had requested nothing, in the hope that the defendant might be induced to say something casting retrospective doubt on his initial statement that he wished to speak through an attorney or not at all." As the Illinois Appellate Court observed, the officer reading petitioner his rights did not understand the statement as a clear request. See, e.g., People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 729, 735-736, 125 Cal.Rptr.

Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL, joins, concurring.


Lego Sanctum Sanctorum Moc, Webster V Reproductive Health Services, Effective Teaching Strategies For Indigenous Students, Holding Back The Tears Lyrics, Farewell Party Lyrics, Sockwa Waterproof, Commercial Real Estate Investment Proposal, What Benefits Are Available For Senior Citizens?, Hand Clapping Games From The 80s, Yoruba Folklore, Vallejo Real Estate, Denounce Antonym, Aid Agency Example, Island Next To Australia, Razer Blackshark V2 Canada, Ballot Paper Template Doc, Shadow Of War Best Gear, Preposition Practice Worksheets, Trial Meaning In Malayalam, Conservative Reform, Michelle Obama Reading The Gruffalo, Wan Peng Height, Examples Of Hegemony In Pop Culture, Uterus Definition And Function, Hackman Musician, Radio 6 Npo, Poaching Vegetables, Energy Efficient Appliances Pros And Cons, Energy Efficient Windows Rebate,