People v Dewayne Emerson Crockran

CONFESSIONS -- Absence of Counsel
 
People v Dewayne Emerson Crockran
___ Mich App ___ (#294831, 04-05-11)
PC: Wilder, Saad, Donofrio
IN PRO PER
 
Reversed order of trial court granting motion to suppress confession and dismissing charges.
 
The trial court erred in suppressing defendant’s confession.  The court improperly relied on Justice Cavanagh’s opinion in People v Bender, 452 Mich 594 (1996), because it is not the majority opinion.  The issue is whether the police actually concealed the fact that defendant had counsel available to him and that counsel was at his disposal.  The overwhelming evidence demonstrates an attorney-client relationship between defendant and his attorney existed prior to defendant’s statements to the officer. Although the attorney had not yet been paid, payment for services is but one consideration in whether an attorney-client relationship existed.  There is no doubt that defendant was aware that he had counsel immediately following his arrest and that counsel was at his disposal.
 
Defendant asked the officer if he needed a lawyer, but never said he wanted to stop talking; defendant said that he would talk without an attorney present.  According to Montejo v Louisiana, 129 S Ct 2079 (2009), the right to counsel may be validly waived in custodial interrogation after the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, even if the interrogation was police initiated.