1.20 - 6. The Edwards Rule

JurisdictionNew York

6. The Edwards Rule

The Supreme Court holds that once an accused invokes his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing that he responded to further police-initiated questioning even if advised of his rights beforehand. Counsel must have been made available to him, or the accused himself must initiate further communication, exchange or conversation with the police. A subsequent waiver at the behest of the police rather than the accused is the product of inherently compelling pressures and not an accused’s voluntary choice.63 The Edwards rule is not a federal constitutional mandate but rather a judicially prescribed prophylaxis.64 Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, what is the result when the accused is freed from custody and later on, while at liberty, advised of his Miranda rights?

When . . . a suspect has been released from his pretrial custody and has been returned to his normal life for some time before the latter attempted interrogation, there is little to think that his change of heart regarding interrogation without counsel has been coerced. He has likely
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT