People v. Skinner, 52 N.Y.2d 24 (1980)
Once an attorney has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive the right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s statement made during a Review Board interview while in custody and without his attorney present should have been suppressed. The court emphasized the importance of the presence of counsel when a defendant in custody waives the right to counsel, particularly after an attorney has already entered the proceedings. Judge Jasen’s concurring opinion focused on the precedent set by People v. Hobson, arguing that the interview was inadmissible due to the defendant’s custodial status and the absence of his attorney during the waiver of his right to counsel.
Facts
The defendant, Skinner, was in custody and had an assigned attorney. While in detention, a police representative of the Review Board interviewed him. This interview stemmed from a complaint initiated voluntarily by Skinner. Prior to the interview, the Review Board representative gave Skinner the standard pre-interrogation warnings, as per Miranda v. Arizona. Skinner acknowledged understanding these rights.
Procedural History
The case initially proceeded through the lower courts, with the Appellate Division issuing an order. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case, ultimately reversing the Appellate Division’s order. The Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s plea, suppressed the statement, restored the case to its pre-pleading status, and remitted it to the Supreme Court, New York County for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant in custody, who is represented by counsel in a criminal proceeding, can validly waive the right to counsel during an interview conducted by a Review Board representative, outside the presence of his attorney.
Holding
No, because once a lawyer has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive the right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals, in a concurring opinion by Judge Jasen, relied heavily on the precedent established in People v. Hobson. The core of the reasoning is that a custodial defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is ineffective if it occurs outside the presence of their attorney, especially after the attorney has formally entered the proceedings. Judge Jasen directly quoted Hobson, stating, “[o]nce a lawyer has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer.” The court emphasized that the Miranda warnings given prior to the interview were insufficient to validate the waiver, given the custodial setting and the absence of counsel. The court underscored the importance of ensuring that any waiver of constitutional rights is competent, intelligent, and voluntary, which is best achieved when counsel is present. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to defendants in custody who have already obtained legal representation, preventing potentially coercive or ill-advised waivers of their right to counsel. The concurring opinion serves as a narrower, more direct application of existing precedent, focusing specifically on the Hobson rule rather than broader considerations about the voluntariness of the defendant’s actions.