| Davis v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 1994 Decided June 24, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Robert L. Davis v. United States |
| Citations | 512 U.S. 452 (more) 114 S. Ct. 2350; 129 L. Ed. 2d 362 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Davis, 36 M.J. 337 (C.M.A. 1993) |
| Holding | |
| The rule in Edwards v. Arizona is an objective inquiry, requiring some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for an attorney’s assistance. However, if a reference is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, Edwards does not require that officers stop questioning the suspect. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Souter, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel."[1]
Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v. Arizona is preferable. This rule states that when a suspect invokes the right to have counsel present during questioning, interrogation cannot continue until counsel is present or until the suspect wishes to initiate further discussion.[2]
- ^ Harr, J. Scott; Kären M. Hess (2007). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-495-09543-9.
- ^ Strauss, Marcy (March 1, 2007). "Understanding Davis v. United States". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 40 (6).