skip navigation


Abstract Database

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

To download this abstract, check the box next to the NCJ number then click the "Back To Search Results" link. Then, click the "Download" button on the Search Results page. Also see the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 146087 Find in a Library
Journal: American Criminal Law Review  Volume:31  Issue:1  Dated:(Fall 1993)  Pages:145-167
Author(s): J E Richardson
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 23
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Right to counsel in custodial interrogation is analyzed.
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Green, 113 S.Ct. 1835 (1993), was presented with the question of whether the Fifth Amendment bars the government from questioning a suspect without the suspect's attorney present, when the suspect invoked his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation on an unrelated offense 5 months earlier and remained in custody for the entire period. The case, which was rendered moot due to the untimely death of Mr. Green, resulted in the Court vacating its order granting certiorari. This Note outlines the facts and procedural history of the case, traces the history of the Court's treatment of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and attempts to place Green in its historical context, analyzing the arguments which the government presented in its brief to the Court. Further, the Note argues that the presumption set forth by the Court in Edwards v. Arizona -- that any statements a suspect makes after requesting counsel are coerced -- should not end until a suspect is released from custody. Mr. Green, once in custody, invoked his right to counsel, thus triggering the Edwards presumption. For the entire 5 months after Mr. Green asked for the assistance of counsel, he remained in custody. This Note argues that the incriminating statement that Mr. Green made at the end of those 5 months, without the presence of his lawyer, was coerced in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Had the Court not dismissed Green, the author argues that it should have affirmed the decision below and not admitted his confession. When presented with a case raising issues similar to Green in the future, the Note concludes that the Court should hold that neither the passage of time nor the entering of a guilty plea should end the Edwards presumption arising from a request for counsel. The only "significant event" that should end the Edwards presumption is the release of a suspect from custody.
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Police; Right to counsel
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.