Montejo v. Louisiana
| Montejo v. Louisiana | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated January 13, 2009 |
||||
| Decided May 26th, 2009 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of the judicial usability of statements made by a suspect during an interview without the presence of a lawyer, although a lawyer had already been appointed for the suspect at an earlier point in time. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The right to a lawyer set out in the 6th additional article can also be given up by a suspect during an interview if a lawyer has already been appointed for the person at an earlier point in time. This also applies if the questioning is initiated by the police and the appointed lawyer is not (yet) present at the time. A previous decision in the Michigan v. Jackson was repealed. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 6. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Montejo v. Louisiana is a case before the United States Supreme Court regarding the question of whether statements made by a suspect without a lawyer in an interrogation initiated on the initiative of the police can be used in court if a lawyer (e.g. by a court).
background
The applicant Jesse Jay Montejo was charged by the US state of Louisiana with the murder of businessman Louis Ferrari. After his arrest, Montejo was duly advised of his right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. He did not specifically request the appointment of a lawyer, nor did he expressly give up that right. At a preliminary hearing on his case, the court appointed a public defender for him, which is common practice in various states when the suspect does not request it. Since the decision of Michigan v. Jackson that - if a suspect has a lawyer - communication with them is only possible through the lawyer and the police themselves do not initiate further interviews with the suspect.
After his arrest, however, Montejo continued to cooperate and talk to the police officers, even though the lawyer appointed for him was not present. At this time Montejo also wrote a condolence letter to the widow of the murder victim. Only then did he meet the public defender appointed for him . The letter was admitted as evidence in court and Montejo was sentenced to death.
judgment
With a majority of 5 out of 9 judges' votes, the Supreme Court declared the condolence letter admissible. The usual practice that the police may only communicate with the suspect via the lawyer applies only if the person has explicitly asserted the right to a lawyer, but not in the case of a court appointment of a public defender.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Montejo v. Louisiana . Retrieved July 12, 2017.