SKIP TO CONTENT
We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.

  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

REGISTER
REGISTER

Montejo Case

Jan 1, 2010 — by Charles Gillingham — pdf

I Can’t Question a Suspect Who is Represented by a Lawyer, Can I?

Yes, you can.

The United States Supreme Court did an absolute about face in Sixth Amendment Jurisprudence recently and you should be aware of the ramifications. The court held that officers may question a represented suspect under certain circumstances.

REPRESENTED SUSPECT

Until this past summer, it was axiomatic that if a suspect was represented by a lawyer you could not question her. (Michigan v. Jackson (1986) 475 U.S. 625.) The US Supremes, however, changed the rule. The new rule is this, IF A SUSPECT IS REPRESENTED, YOU PROVIDE MIRANDA WARNINGS, THE SUSPECT WAIVES AND HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY INVOKED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, YOU MAY QUESTION THAT SUSPECT. Yes, you read that correctly. If a suspect is represented, you may question that suspect. Be aware that all of the other Miranda rules we know and understand did not change in any way.

MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA

In Montejo, defendant was arrested for murder and placed in custody. At his arraignment Montejo was appointed an attorney. Three days later, officers went to the jail and removed Montejo with the stated goal of returning to the crime scene to find the murder weapon. The officers Mirandized the defendant and obtained a valid waiver. While they had Montejo out of the jail they asked him to write an apology letter to the wife of the victim. The defendant wrote the letter, it was admitted at his trial, defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. It would seem at first blush the eliciting of this confession/apology note was taken illegally.

Montejo argued on appeal that the letter was elicited in violation of the Michigan v. Jackson which stated that police cannot question a represented suspect irrespective of whether the suspect waived Miranda.

The U.S. Supremes decided to provide a bright line rule. You CAN interview a represented suspect provided the following is true, you have provided Miranda warnings, the suspect waives, and the suspect has not previously invoked her right to an attorney (unless of course she contacts you and wants to talk). The same strict adherence to Miranda must be followed, if a suspect unambiguously requests an attorney, all questioning must cease. Moreover, it would appear that an attorney’s request that officers not question their client, are without force. The Sixth Amendment is personal, and it would seem through this decision, must be requested by the suspect.

RESULT

The primary reason for the decision is one that you already know, the “substantial cost” to society in deterring officers from taking voluntary, non-coerced confessions to crimes. As a society, the Court held, we have a compelling interest in the guilty being arrested and successfully prosecuted.

Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor. He is also an instructor for the California District Attorneys’ Association and for Santa Clara University School of Law.

  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department

  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department

  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department

  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS

  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda

  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau

  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police

  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department

  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator

  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department

  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC

  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office

  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin