Reply #12: yes [View All]

Bush didn't write the opinion. I'm smart that way.

Would it be better that Jackson survived? I suppose that depends on which state you live in, the circuits were split on the interpretation and use of same - that's why SCOTUS decided to hear the pet for cert.

As Scalia explains, Edwards and Peterson provide the protections. The guarantees of the 5th and 6th amendment remain in tact. The accused has the right to remain silent and he/she can ask for a lawyer at any time during questioning and can refuse to answer any questions. Once they ask for an attorney the questioning is to stop. (Actually, the accused can refuse at any time, Edwards was written to discourage the badgering by the cops and Peterson provides safeguards to determine that the waiver was intelligently and voluntarily given.)

All those up in arm seem to overlook what this means for Montejo - poor son-of-a-bitch gets another hearing and further consideration from the Louisiana court and everyone is pissed off. He has another chance to prove that he did not freely and voluntarily write the letter and give the subsequent confession to the cops after he was appointed an attorney. The court did not say - he's guilty now put him to death. What's up with that, don't folks care about the defendant any more?

Although our holding means that the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly rejected Montejo’s claim under Jackson, we think that Montejo should be given an opportunity to contend that his letter of apology should still have been suppressed under the rule of Edwards. If Montejo made a clear assertion of the right to counsel when the officers approached him about accompanying them on the excursion for the murder weapon, then no interrogation should have taken place unless Montejo initiated it. Davis, supra, at 459. Even if Montejo subsequently agreed to waive his rights, that waiver would have been invalid had it followed an “unequivocal election of the right,” Cobb, 532 U. S., at 176 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

And did you even look at the facts of the case? Montejo confessed on his own, he waived his rights and after questioning by the cops he confessed. (They didn't suspect him of the murder, they thought he was an accomplice until he kept changing his story and eventually confessed.) That initial confession is not the subject of the appeal, he doesn't challenge that confession.

The appeal is based on a letter of apology that Montejo wrote during questioning after his preliminary hearing and the appointment of an attorney (before the attorney had the chance to met with his client). According to the police version, Montejo freely waived his right to his attorney and cooperated with them and wrote the letter to the family. The letter of apology was admitted over defense objection.

SCOTUS ruled

Montejo understandably did not pursue an Edwards objection, because Jackson served as the Sixth Amendment analogy to Edwards and offered broader protections. Our decision today, overruling Jackson, changes the legal landscape and does so in part based on the protections already provided by Edwards. Thus we think that a remand is appropriate so that Montejo can pursue this alternative avenue for relief. Montejo may also seek on remand to press any claim he might have that his Sixth Amendment waiver was not knowing and voluntary, e.g., his argument that the waiver was invalid because it was based on misrepresentations by police as to whether he had been appointed a lawyer, cf. Moran, 475 U. S., at 428–429. These matters have heightened importance in light of our opinion today.

We do not venture to resolve these issues ourselves, not only because we are a court of final review, “not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709 , n. 7 (2005), but also because the relevant facts remain unclear. Montejo and the police gave inconsistent testimony about exactly what took place on the afternoon of September 10, 2002, and the Louisiana Supreme Court did not make an explicit credibility determination. Moreover, Montejo’s testimony came not at the suppression hearing, but rather only at trial, and we are unsure whether under state law that testimony came too late to affect the propriety of the admission of the evidence. These matters are best left for resolution on remand.

I don't like Scalia, not just because a good many of his opinions suck, but because of who he is, the disrespect he has shown the court and his position. But that being said, his opinion in the case does not disturb me - I find it amazing that they gave the defendant another chance and pointed his counsel in the direction as to what to pursue before the lower court.

I see the battle between him and Stevens to be about egos, Stevens wrote Michigan v. Jackson and it is rare for the court to overturn a decision of a justice that is still on the bench (it's disrespectful as all hell)

So yes, even if Bush was in office, I'd feel the same way. I hate to agree with Scalia but he does have his moments. His published dissent in Sorich actually offers hope to folks like Siegelman. That's the remarkable thing about the justice system of ours - adversaries can agree, can find they are on the same side - the side of justice - Montejo's been offered that justice, some folks just don't like how the court got there.