Michigan v. Jackson
| Michigan v. Jackson | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated December 9, 1985 |
||||
| Decided April 1, 1986 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of whether the statements of a suspect can be used in court if the police initiate an interview without the presence of a lawyer, although the suspect has asserted his right to a lawyer at an earlier point in time. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The right to a lawyer set out in the 6th additional article , once it has been claimed, can only be given up again if the suspect himself initiates this. Communication between the police and the suspect may only take place through the lawyer. Otherwise, statements made without a lawyer cannot be used. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 6. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Michigan v. Jackson is the Supreme Court of the United States negotiated case as to whether statements of a suspicious person outside the presence of a lawyer are judicially usable in a started on the initiative of police questioning, if that person at an earlier time already on her in the 6th Amendment Uncommitted Has the right to appoint a lawyer.
background
Robert Bernard Jackson was charged with the murder and conspiracy to murder the husband of a woman he knew. After his arrest, he was duly advised of his rights and he relied on his constitutional right to a public lawyer. The following day, he was interrogated by two police officers on their initiative without his lawyer present and said they shot the victim. He was then convicted of murder in court. An appeals court upheld the conviction. However, the Michigan State Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the interrogation was unlawful without his attorney. The state of Michigan appealed to the United States Supreme Court of last resort.
judgment
With a majority of 6 of the 9 judges' votes, the Supreme Court declared the interrogation inadmissible without the presence of the required lawyer. As soon as a suspect has asserted their right to a lawyer, communications initiated by the police may only be directed to the suspect via the lawyer. If the suspect is addressed directly by the police and interrogated without the presence of a lawyer, statements made in court cannot be used.
The court's judgment was partially overturned in 2009. In the case of Montejo v. Louisiana ruled the court that the police could initiate an interrogation of a suspect themselves if the right to a lawyer was not explicitly asserted, for example when a public defender was appointed by a court.