Moran v. Burbine (1985)
- Docket
- 84-1485
- Decided
- 1985-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment require the suppression of three confessions and three valid waivers of rights, when an attorney unrequested by the defendant was given misleading information by a police officer about interrogations and the defendant was not informed of the attorney's call? Conclusion: No. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for a 6-3 majority, reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court held that failure to inform Burbine about the attorney’s phone call did not affect the validity of his waiver of rights. The waiver was not coerced, and Burbine was aware of his rights at all times. The right to counsel does not attach until an accused is formally charged, so that right was not violated in this case. Also, the misleading conduct by the police was not so offensive that it deprived Burbine of his due process rights. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that Burbine’s waiver of rights was invalidated by the police’s deceptive acts. Those acts also constituted an interference with the administration of justice that the due process clause was meant to prohibit. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent.