“Lawyering-Up”
Jackson v. Michigan 475 US (1986)

Patience Smith
Criminal Law PA 260-01
Professor Chiacchia

The facts of the case in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) are as follows. The defendant, Jackson was arrested and interrogated as a suspect of a murder. At the arraignment, Mr. Jackson requested to have an attorney. The police were present at the arraignment. After the arraignment but before Jackson consulted with his attorney, the police met with him. Defendant Jackson was given his Miranda warnings and then waived his right to counsel. He then gave a statement confirming that he had committed the murder in question. Defendant Jackson was eventually convicted of 2nd degree murder and conspiracy.
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that Defendant Jackson’s statement of committing the murder was admissible. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that the statement was taken from Defendant Jackson in violation of his 6th Amendment right to counsel. The Supreme Court agreed to hear this and another case that presented the same question.
A brief synopsis of the case is as follows, “if a police interrogation begins after a defendant asserts his or her right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, then any waiver of that right for that police initiated interrogation is invalid.” (Jackson, 1986) In Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), the petitioner (Jackson) challenged a ruling of the Supreme Court of Michigan that reversed a respondent’s convictions for murder because the respondent’s confession should have been suppressed as they were obtained after the respondent requested counsel but before they were able to consult with counsel which is in violation of the Sixth U.S. Constitutional Amendment. The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel is the right of a person accused of a crime to have the help of an attorney throughout any criminal procedure.
In two unrelated murder cases, the respondents were arraigned separately and at that time each requested appointment of counsel. While in police custody and before respondents were able to consult with counsel, respondents were after each was advised of his Miranda rights. During the interrogations, the respondents confessed to their crimes and their confessions were admitted into