Connecticut v. Barrett

Summary

The Supreme Court held that William Barrett's statements to police were admissible because his willingness to speak orally, coupled with his limited request for counsel before making a written statement, constituted a valid waiver of his rights. The Court reversed the Connecticut Supreme Court, concluding that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments did not require suppression of the oral statements under Edwards v. Arizona.

Holdings

1. A suspect's statement that he will not make a written statement without counsel, while affirmatively stating that he is willing to discuss the matter orally, is a limited and clear invocation of counsel that does not bar the police from obtaining an oral statement.
2. The State established that Barrett voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel for purposes of oral questioning.
3. The Constitution did not require suppression of Barrett's oral statements because his limited request for counsel was accompanied by an affirmative choice to speak, and the statements were obtained after a valid waiver.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a suspect who expressly declines to make a written statement without counsel but affirmatively agrees to speak orally has invoked the right to counsel for all interrogation purposes under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether Barrett voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before making the oral statements.
3. Whether the Constitution required suppression of Barrett's oral statements under Edwards v. Arizona.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded