The Confession at Hour Six
At 9:00 p.m. police arrest Theo, age 19, for a tavern burglary. At the station they read him the warnings; he says, 'I don't know, maybe I should talk to a lawyer, but I guess I could explain what happened.' Detectives question him for another 90 minutes. Theo is visibly shaking, has slept twelve hours in the past three days, and twice asks for water. At 10:30 p.m. he admits he 'was near the bar that night.' At 11:00 p.m. he says, 'All right, I want a lawyer.' Questioning stops. At 1:00 a.m. a different detective, who has not reviewed the file, wakes Theo in his holding cell, re-warns him, and asks about the burglary. Theo gives a full written confession at 1:40 a.m. and, at 2:00 a.m., tells officers the crowbar is in his cousin's garage. It is found there. Theo moves to suppress both statements and the crowbar.
1. Is the 10:30 p.m. admission admissible? Analyze the invocation question and the waiver/voluntariness question separately.
Read the worked answer
Split the analysis-the invocation issue is easy; voluntariness is not.
Invocation. The test is whether the suspect unambiguously requested counsel. 'I don't know, maybe I should talk to a lawyer' is precisely the equivocal statement that does not require officers to stop; Davis v. United States holds that questioning may continue where the reference is ambiguous. The follow-on 'I guess I could explain' reinforces that Theo chose to keep talking.
Waiver and voluntariness. An ambiguous reference does not end the inquiry: the State must still show that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. Factors here cut both ways:
- Supporting voluntariness: he was warned, he expressed willingness to explain, the session was only 90 minutes, no threats or promises are described.
- Undercutting it: he is 19, severely sleep-deprived, visibly shaking, asked for water twice, and had just equivocated about counsel before being pressed.
Likely outcome: the 10:30 admission is probably admissible, but the court must make a totality finding, and if the record shows any promise of leniency or any refusal to let him stop, it flips. The partial admission ('near the bar') is also far less damaging than the full confession.
2. Is the 1:40 a.m. written confession admissible? Address the effect of the 11:00 p.m. request, the change of interrogator, and the two-hour gap.
Read the worked answer
No-the confession must be suppressed.
- Clear invocation. At 11:00 p.m. Theo said, 'All right, I want a lawyer.' That is unambiguous and must be honored.
- The Edwards rule. Once an accused in custody has expressed a desire to deal with police only through counsel, questioning must cease until counsel is provided or the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with authorities.
- The 1:00 a.m. encounter was police-initiated. Theo did not ask to speak with anyone; he was woken in his cell. Re-warning him does not cure the violation.
- The two-hour gap is not a break in custody. A fresh interrogation requires a break in custody of roughly fourteen days. Two hours in the same holding cell is not that.
- The new detective's ignorance is irrelevant. The invocation is imputed to all officers; the prosecution cannot launder an inadmissible interrogation through an uninformed officer.
The only arguable route back: if Theo had spontaneously said, 'I want to talk, forget the lawyer,' the confession would be admissible after a valid waiver. Nothing in the facts shows that, so the presumption applies and the confession goes out.
3. Should the crowbar be suppressed? Analyze the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and any exceptions the prosecution might invoke.
Read the worked answer
Likely suppressed as fruit of the unlawfully obtained confession.
- Derivative evidence. Physical evidence obtained by exploiting a constitutional violation is inadmissible unless the prosecution proves an independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation.
- The nuance worth flagging. Failure to give Miranda warnings, standing alone, does not require suppression of the physical fruits of a voluntary statement, because the Fifth Amendment privilege protects against compelled testimony, not against the physical evidence itself. But that is not this case: the 1:40 a.m. statement was obtained in violation of the rule that questioning must cease after a clear request for counsel-a prophylactic rule designed to prevent precisely this kind of end-run. A per se inadmissible confession cannot be used as the engine for obtaining physical evidence; the crowbar is tainted.
- Exceptions to test on the facts. (1) Inevitable discovery-if the crowbar would have been found in a lawful inventory of the cousin's garage or a consensual search already underway, it comes in; nothing in the record suggests that. (2) Independent source-if a witness had already told police the crowbar was in the garage before 2:00 a.m., it comes in. (3) Attenuation-weak here: the location was learned within twenty minutes of the confession, with no intervening event.
Practical conclusion: suppress the crowbar unless the prosecution can affirmatively develop an independent or inevitable source; otherwise the confession and the tool both fail.