I have a confession with a Rothgery problem, i.e. taken after the defendant had signed a form at magistration in another county requesting court appointed counsel. All this happened before Rothgery was decided, but I can't change my facts now.

Are there ANY appellate people out there who think there is any way to make an argument to distinguish a case from Rothgery and save a confession that was valid in every other way.

Seems the SCOTUS is willing to look at relieving some of the problem of magistration, appointment of counsel and interrogation after Rothgery. For a summary of the issues, check out this blog.

That seems . . . odd. They practically ran to Michigan v. Jackson in Rothgery to suggest that Rothgery wasn't anything new.

And then real prosecutors explained the process.

The SCOTUSBLOG link just takes you to the main page--what post were you talking about?

Thanks!

The U.S. Solicitor General, speaking for the federal government, urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to overrule its 1986 decision in Michigan v. Jackson. Seeking to assure that the right to counsel is not lost during police interrogation, the Court ruled in Jackson that, once an accused has claimed that right in court, any waiver of that right during police questioning would not be valid unless the individual initiated communication with the officers.

Details.