Defendant arrested for robbery. Claims 5th. Next day investigator from another county interviews defendant about another crime. Defendant talks to him about his crime and then questioning moves to robbery. Defense files suppression. Think anything in second interview about new offense will be suppressed. Will all statements be suppressed? Defendant did not initiate contact. 6th is clearly offense specific but worried 5th carries over to all offenses. Thoughts

Without doubt, "through the exercise of his option to terminate questioning[, the suspect] can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation." But, I think Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 also makes it clear that a new set of questions can be propounded later and the police can still be considered to be scrupulously honoring the earlier invocation of silence. Cutting off questioning does not create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject. Of course, whether a resumption of questioning is consistent with "scrupulously honoring" the right to remain silent depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
Maestas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Martin Peterson,

right to silence or right to counsel? Look at Maryland v. Schatzer, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010). It used to be that invoking right to counsel on one offense meant that right to counsel had been invoked for all offenses, but Shatzer said defendant could be reapproached after 14 days. The fact that a detective didn't know about an earlier invocation of right to counsel would not excuse the questioning undeer Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 687-88.

Seems to me all are likely suppressed. But don't forget they are still available for impeachment and cannot cause suppression of evidence obtained because of the statements.

After reading these cases I agree. Now, during what we have now determined to be an illegal interview, what if defendant admits to where some instrumentalities of the crime are located and agrees to lead detectives there.

This would be a violation of Miranda as extended by Arizona v. Edwards. Thus, evidence discovered as a result of the interview is NOT subject to suppression under Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, and Baker v. State, 956 S.W.3d 19, 23.

Only the statements obtained in violation of Miranda get suppressed. 6th Amendment and other 5th Amendment violations will probably be different unless you can show some other exception to the exclusionary rule, such as attenuation or independent source.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnR,

What about 38.23? "(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."

Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19, 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)(Miranda violations do not require suppression of physical evidence under Article 38.23).