The Confession After Six Hours
Detective Okafor is investigating a residential burglary. A 19-year-old suspect with no prior record is brought in at 4:00 p.m. He is read his Miranda rights and says, 'I want a lawyer.' Okafor stops questioning and books him. At 8:00 p.m., a different detective, unaware of the invocation, brings the suspect to an interview room and asks about the burglary. The suspect talks for two hours and admits entering the home. No new warnings are given. The suspect has not slept and has not eaten since morning. At 10:00 p.m., he signs a written statement.
1. Did the second detective's questioning violate the suspect's rights? Explain the rules on invocation and re-initiation.
Read the worked answer
Yes, likely. Once a suspect unambiguously requests counsel, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present or the suspect himself initiates further communication. A different detective does not get a fresh start; the invocation travels with the suspect. The second detective's ignorance of the invocation does not cure the violation-the agency has an obligation to track custody status. Questioning two hours after a clear request, without new warnings and without re-initiation by the suspect, is a classic Miranda violation. The admission and the written statement are presumptively inadmissible.
2. The suspect was tired and hungry. How does that affect the voluntariness analysis, and what facts should the detective document?
Read the worked answer
Voluntariness looks at the totality: duration, conditions, the suspect's age, education, and physical state, and whether coercion was used. A 19-year-old with no record, awake since morning, unfed, and questioned for two hours after invoking counsel presents real risk that the statement was not voluntary. Fatigue and hunger alone do not automatically make a statement involuntary, but combined with the Miranda violation they strengthen the defense. The detective should document when the suspect last ate and slept, breaks offered, water or food provided, and the exact times of questioning. If those facts are bad, the report must still record them accurately-omitting them invites a credibility attack.
3. What should the detective have done differently at 8:00 p.m., and how should the case proceed now?
Read the worked answer
At 8:00 p.m., the detective should have checked the custody record, seen the invocation, and not questioned the suspect. If there was a legitimate reason to speak with him, it should have been limited to booking or administrative matters, not the burglary. If the suspect later re-initiated contact on his own, the detective could resume after re-advising and confirming the waiver. Now the case should be reviewed by a supervisor and prosecutor; the statement may be suppressed, and the prosecution must rely on independent evidence-physical evidence, witnesses, and any lawfully obtained statements. The detective should write a candid supplemental report rather than trying to salvage the statement.