State v. Wessells (NJ Appellate Division)
Facts: An incident occurred which resulted in five individuals being shot, of whom all but two were killed. A police investigation led to the arrest of co-defendant Raheem Clay (‘Rah’). The following day the defendant, Wessells, was arrested on a traffic warrant and taken to police headquarters. Wessells was orally advised of his Miranda rights and signed a Miranda waiver form. Wessels was interviewed, but refused to give a formal taped statement. The defendant was questioned regarding an incident prior to the shootings in which he was an alleged victim of an assault. In reference to this incident, Wessels admitted he quarreled with one of the deceased victims of the shooting and then he was assaulted by the victim’s friends. The police also questioned the defendant about the triple homicide. Wessels claimed he only read about the incident in the newspaper. Wessell also gave the police Rah’s contact information. Then, the defendant requested a lawyer before continuing to answer any more questions and the interrogation terminated.
The defendant posted bail on the traffic warrants and was released. Nine days later, one of the surviving victims identified Wessells as one of the shooters. The defendant was taken into police custody in connection with the homicides and attempted murders. The police reiterated to the defendant his Miranda rights and the defendant waived his rights and agreed to give a statement without an attorney present. The defendant admitted he was at the scene of the homicide, but denied participating in the shootings. Wessells also acknowledged his previous dispute with the deceased victim and restated that he was jumped by the victim’s friends.
Holding: The court addressed the “Edwards rule,” which provides that an accused who has expressed a desire to deal with the police through counsel cannot be subject to further interrogation without counsel present, unless the accused initiates the exchange. This rule is to protect the accused from being badgered or bullied into making a statement. The Edwards rule does not address whether or not a break in custody after the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights relaxes the enforcement of the rule. In this case, the court held that a person who has asserted a right to counsel during a police custodial interrogation and is subsequently released may be interrogated again if the break in custody afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult an attorney. The court adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine if the break in custody gave the accused a reasonable opportunity to consult an attorney. This test was adopted to prevent police from circumventing the Edwards rule by releasing the accused from custody for a short period of time so the police could seek another waiver of the rights from the accused.
Opinion: The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment establishes procedural safeguards to secure citizen’s rights. While these rights should be vigorously protected, they are not and should not be limitless. The Appellate Division may or may not have made the correct ruling in this case. Defendant asserted his right to counsel. No counsel ever appeared and waived the right. Nonetheless, by establishing a totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court struck a balance between an accused’s fundamental right to counsel and the interest of justice. What I mean by this is the test prevents an individual from being worn down by trained officers and detectives prior to making a statement, while also ensuring the accused cannot retract a statement simply based upon a legal technicality. In this case, the accused had nine days to contact counsel and the police also repeated the Miranda warning to Wessells after the second arrest. Given these facts, Wessell had a reasonable opportunity to seek counsel or could have reinforced his right to counsel rather than waiving it.
Thanks to law student, Anthony D'Antonio for his summary.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment