Connecticut v. Barrett

479 U.S. 523 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was a suspect in a sexual assault that had occurred the previous evening. Officer Cameron advised D of his rights, and D signed and dated an acknowledgment. D stated that 'he would not give the police any written statements but he had no problem in talking about the incident.' Thirty minutes later, D was questioned by Cameron and Officer Genovese. D was again advised of his Miranda rights and signed a card acknowledging that he had been read the rights. D stated that he understood his rights, and told the officers that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present but had 'no problem' talking about the incident. D gave an oral statement admitting his involvement in the sexual assault. A tape recorder used to preserve the statement had malfunctioned, and the police conducted a second interview. For the third time, D was advised of his Miranda rights nd once again stated that 'he was willing to talk about [the incident] verbally but he did not want to put anything in writing until his attorney came.' D repeated to the police his confession regarding the previous evening's events. The tape recorder had again failed to record the statement. Cameron reduced to writing his recollection of D's statement. The trial court held that the confession was admissible. D had voluntarily waived his right to counsel and thus allowed testimony at trial as to the content of D's statement. D was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 9 to 18 years. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. D had invoked his right to counsel by refusing to make written statements without the presence of his attorney; that expressed a desire for counsel before making a written statement served as an invocation of the right for all purposes. D's refusal to give a written statement without his attorney present was a clear request for the assistance of counsel to protect his rights in his dealings with the police. Such a request continues to be constitutionally effective despite the defendant's willingness to make oral statements. P appealed.