McNeil v. Wisconsin
Encyclopedia
McNeil v. Wisconsin, , held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment
and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona
, , are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.
, near Milwaukee
. He invoked his Miranda rights and the police ceased questioning him. He was arraigned, and a bail hearing was held. He was represented by a public defender
at this hearing. After the bail hearing, McNeil was approached by other detectives investigating a murder in Caledonia, Wisconsin
, near Racine
.
McNeil waived his Miranda rights when talking to the detective
about the Caledonia murder. McNeil denied being there, however. Two days later the detective returned; this time McNeil again waived his Miranda rights but admitted being involved in the Caledonia murder along with two other men. Two days after that the detectives interviewed McNeil for a third time. This time, McNeil waived his Miranda rights and then admitted he had lied to the police in the previous interview regarding the involvement of one of the other men.
Eventually, McNeil was tried for the Caledonia murder. He moved to suppress the three statements about that incident he had given to the police on the grounds that they had violated his right to counsel because he had been represented by a lawyer at the bail hearing on the West Allis robbery. The trial court denied the motion, and McNeil was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison.
McNeil appealed, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed his three statements to the police regarding the Caledonia murder. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
agreed with the lower courts that the fact that McNeil had been represented by a lawyer at the bail hearing on the West Allis robbery charge did not give McNeil a right to counsel with respect to the Caledonia murders. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, and cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions. In Michigan v. Jackson
, , the Court had held that once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, the police may not question a defendant regarding that crime. But implicit in the Jackson ruling was the fact that the protection against subsequent interrogation related only to the crime with which the defendant had been charged. Because McNeil had not been charged with the Caledonia crimes at the time of the bail hearing on the West Allis hearing, the Sixth Amendment could not have given McNeil a way to avoid police questioning about the Caledonia murder.
Although both the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (through Miranda) involve a right to counsel, these right to counsel guard against two different risks. The Sixth Amendment preserves a defendant's right to meet the "expert adversary" of the government with an equally skilled adversary. The Miranda right to counsel, by contrast, guards against the inherently coercive nature of police interrogation and ensures that criminal suspects give statements to the police voluntarily. Thus, the Miranda right to counsel is not offense specific, for once a suspect has invoked the protections of Miranda, the police may not approach him again at all.
A criminal defendant may give up either or both of these rights, of course, but the standards for doing so are quite different. "One might be quite willing to speak to the police without counsel present concerning many matters, but not the matter under prosecution. It can be said, perhaps, that is it likely that one who has asked for counsel's assistance in defending against a prosecution would want counsel present for all custodial interrogation, even interrogation unrelated to the charge." Thus, waivers of Miranda rights are generally situation-specific and easy to accomplish, while waivers of the right to counsel for purposes of trial waive it for not only the trial but ancillary proceedings as well, and is correspondingly more difficult to effectuate.
The Court acknowledged that it might have the power to link the two waivers, but that it would be imprudent to do so. If having a lawyer for one prosecution meant that a criminal defendant could not be questioned regarding any crime at all without the lawyer's presence, "most persons in pretrial custody for serious offenses would be unapproachable by police officers suspecting them of involvement in other crimes, even though they have never expressed any unwillingness to be questioned."
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant...
, , are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.
Facts
Paul McNeil was arrested in May, 1987, on suspicion that he had committed armed robbery in West Allis, WisconsinWest Allis, Wisconsin
West Allis is a city in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, United States. It is part of the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The population was 61,254 at the 2000 census. Its name derives from Edward P. Allis, who started the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company in the 19th century. The site of the town was...
, near Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee is the largest city in the U.S. state of Wisconsin, the 28th most populous city in the United States and 39th most populous region in the United States. It is the county seat of Milwaukee County and is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan. According to 2010 census data, the...
. He invoked his Miranda rights and the police ceased questioning him. He was arraigned, and a bail hearing was held. He was represented by a public defender
Public defender
The term public defender is primarily used to refer to a criminal defense lawyer appointed to represent people charged with a crime but who cannot afford to hire an attorney in the United States and Brazil. The term is also applied to some ombudsman offices, for example in Jamaica, and is one way...
at this hearing. After the bail hearing, McNeil was approached by other detectives investigating a murder in Caledonia, Wisconsin
Caledonia, Racine County, Wisconsin
Caledonia is a village in Racine County, Wisconsin, United States. The population was 24,365 at the 2010 census. The residential community of Franksville are located within the village. Franksville was a former census-designated place. The residential neighborhood of Husher is also located within...
, near Racine
Racine, Wisconsin
Racine is a city in and the county seat of Racine County, Wisconsin, United States. According to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the city had a population of 82,196...
.
McNeil waived his Miranda rights when talking to the detective
Detective
A detective is an investigator, either a member of a police agency or a private person. The latter may be known as private investigators or "private eyes"...
about the Caledonia murder. McNeil denied being there, however. Two days later the detective returned; this time McNeil again waived his Miranda rights but admitted being involved in the Caledonia murder along with two other men. Two days after that the detectives interviewed McNeil for a third time. This time, McNeil waived his Miranda rights and then admitted he had lied to the police in the previous interview regarding the involvement of one of the other men.
Eventually, McNeil was tried for the Caledonia murder. He moved to suppress the three statements about that incident he had given to the police on the grounds that they had violated his right to counsel because he had been represented by a lawyer at the bail hearing on the West Allis robbery. The trial court denied the motion, and McNeil was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison.
McNeil appealed, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed his three statements to the police regarding the Caledonia murder. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the state of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin.-Location:...
affirmed the conviction, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
U.S. Supreme Court decision
Writing for the majority, Justice ScaliaAntonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
agreed with the lower courts that the fact that McNeil had been represented by a lawyer at the bail hearing on the West Allis robbery charge did not give McNeil a right to counsel with respect to the Caledonia murders. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, and cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions. In Michigan v. Jackson
Michigan v. Jackson
Michigan v. Jackson, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation...
, , the Court had held that once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, the police may not question a defendant regarding that crime. But implicit in the Jackson ruling was the fact that the protection against subsequent interrogation related only to the crime with which the defendant had been charged. Because McNeil had not been charged with the Caledonia crimes at the time of the bail hearing on the West Allis hearing, the Sixth Amendment could not have given McNeil a way to avoid police questioning about the Caledonia murder.
Although both the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (through Miranda) involve a right to counsel, these right to counsel guard against two different risks. The Sixth Amendment preserves a defendant's right to meet the "expert adversary" of the government with an equally skilled adversary. The Miranda right to counsel, by contrast, guards against the inherently coercive nature of police interrogation and ensures that criminal suspects give statements to the police voluntarily. Thus, the Miranda right to counsel is not offense specific, for once a suspect has invoked the protections of Miranda, the police may not approach him again at all.
A criminal defendant may give up either or both of these rights, of course, but the standards for doing so are quite different. "One might be quite willing to speak to the police without counsel present concerning many matters, but not the matter under prosecution. It can be said, perhaps, that is it likely that one who has asked for counsel's assistance in defending against a prosecution would want counsel present for all custodial interrogation, even interrogation unrelated to the charge." Thus, waivers of Miranda rights are generally situation-specific and easy to accomplish, while waivers of the right to counsel for purposes of trial waive it for not only the trial but ancillary proceedings as well, and is correspondingly more difficult to effectuate.
The Court acknowledged that it might have the power to link the two waivers, but that it would be imprudent to do so. If having a lawyer for one prosecution meant that a criminal defendant could not be questioned regarding any crime at all without the lawyer's presence, "most persons in pretrial custody for serious offenses would be unapproachable by police officers suspecting them of involvement in other crimes, even though they have never expressed any unwillingness to be questioned."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 501
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court