Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)
- Docket
- 89-6332
- Decided
- 1990-01-01
Summary
Question: Does Edwards v Arizona require counsel to be present with an accused during any questioning after that accused invokes his right to counsel? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 6-2 majority, reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court held that once counsel is requested, no interrogation can take place without counsel unless the accused waives that right. The right to counsel is not satisfied by merely meeting with counsel outside the interrogation room. The Edwards protection did end as soon as an accused meets with counsel. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, writing that there was no justification for creating a rebuttable presumption that an accused has not waived his right to counsel after invoking that right. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent.