Davis v. United States (1993)
- Docket
- 92-1949
- Decided
- 1993-01-01
Summary
Question: When a suspect makes an ambiguous request for counsel during a custodial interrogation, must the interrogator cease questioning until the suspect is provided with counsel? Conclusion: No. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for five members of the court, affirmed. The Supreme Court held that, assuming Edwards applies in military proceedings, investigators do not need to cease questioning when an accused makes an ambiguous statement like “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” The Court noted that, while it was proper for the investigators to clarify Davis’ intentions, the Court does not require investigators to adopt that practice in future interrogations. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, writing that the Court should consider the federal statute governing the admissibility of confessions in federal prosecutions the next time a similar case comes before the court. Justice David H. Souter concurred in the judgment, but expressed that investigators have a legal obligation to clarify ambiguous statements that could reasonably be understood as a request to consult with a lawyer. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Justice John Paul Stevens, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the concurrence in the judgment.