Moran v. Burbine
- Decided
- March 10, 1986
- Docket
- 84-1485
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,339 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after the initiation of formal charges — Chapdelaine v. State (2011)
- holding that police need not inform defendant who waived his Miranda rights that his attorney had called — Commonwealth v. Raymond (1997)
- holding that Miranda gives “the defendant the power to exert some control over the course of the interrogation” — Arabzadegan v. State (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*415] Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
After being informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and after executing a series of written waivers, respondent confessed to the murder of a young woman. At no point during the course of the interrogation, which occurred prior to arraignment, did he request an attorney. While he was in police custody, his sister attempted to retain a lawyer to represent him. The attorney telephoned the police station and received assurances that respondent would not be questioned further until the next day. In fact, the interrogation session that yielded the inculpatory statements began later that evening. The question presented is whether either the conduct of the police or respond [*416] ent’s ignorance of the attorney’s efforts to reach him taints the validity of the waivers and therefore requires exclusion of the confessions.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.