Request for an Attorney Must be Unequivocal
In what is a somewhat bizarre case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide soon what type of speech qualifies as a request for an attorney. A defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to an attorney but in order to exercise that right, the defendant must make a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney so that law enforcement officials know that an attorney is being requested. In State v. Turner, the Tennessee Supreme Court will take a look at just how clear and unequivocal that request has to be.
In Turner, the defendant was arrested for murder and robbery and taken into custody. While in custody, he gave a statement to police admitting his involvement in the crimes. However, defendant apparently made several different statements indicating his desire for a Tennessee criminal defense attorney during the interrogation process, which seemed to indicate that he was asserting his Miranda right to counsel and did not wish to proceed further into the process without an attorney. The defendant made statements such as “Are you my lawyer?”; “How quick will my lawyer get here?”; Will my lawyer get here today?”; Do I need to get a lawyer?”; and “Get me a lawyer.”
Thus, it would not seem to be one of the great mysteries of the world that the suspect wished to be represented by counsel. Nonetheless, interrogation proceeded, and the defendant’s motion to suppress the admission was not granted by the trial court. Likewise, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that under the circumstances the defendant did not make an unconditional and unequivocal request for counsel and upheld the ruling of the trial court.
The statement “Get me a lawyer” seems to be devoid of any ambiguity and altogether not subtle in its demand for counsel. However, the courts to approach the issue so far have not agreed. In deciding this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will essentially be deciding how to make a clear and unequivocal request for counsel, which should be an interesting decision and one that could prove important in the field of criminal law for years to come.
Source: State v.Turner, 34 TAM 13-20 (Tenn.Cr.App. 2009), appeal granted 6/15/09, oral argument 11/5/09.
Bookmark: 
