People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325 (1968)
Once the police are aware that a defendant is represented by counsel, or that an attorney has communicated with the police to represent the defendant, the accused’s right to counsel attaches, and this right is not dependent on a formal retainer or a request from the attorney not to question the defendant.
Summary
Arthur was arrested for throwing his son into a river. An attorney, Stern, who knew Arthur, saw the news and went to the police station, identifying himself as Arthur’s attorney and asking to see him. The police allowed Stern to see Arthur after questioning. Stern advised the police that Arthur was sick and shouldn’t be questioned further. The next day, police questioned Arthur without counsel, and he made incriminating statements. The court held that Arthur’s right to counsel was violated when police questioned him after Stern had communicated his representation, regardless of a formal retainer or an explicit request to cease questioning. The confession and subsequent statements were deemed inadmissible.
Facts
The defendant, Arthur, threw his two-year-old son into a river.
He was arrested and confessed to the crime.
Attorney Stern, who knew Arthur and had previously represented him, saw a news report about the incident and went to the police station.
Stern identified himself to the police as Arthur’s attorney and asked to see him.
The police allowed Stern to see Arthur after they finished questioning him.
Stern told the police that Arthur was unwell and should not be questioned further.
The next morning, police questioned Arthur without his attorney present, and Arthur made incriminating statements.
Procedural History
Arthur was indicted for attempted murder in the first degree.
His written confession was admitted into evidence at trial.
A detective testified to Arthur’s incriminating statements made the day after the arrest; this testimony was not objected to.
Arthur was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
Arthur appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that his confession and subsequent statements were inadmissible because they were obtained after his attorney had requested to see him.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s written confession was inadmissible because it was obtained after his attorney had requested to see him?
Whether the oral admissions made to the detective were inadmissible because they were obtained in the absence of counsel after his attorney had been granted access to him?
Holding
Yes, because once the police are aware that a defendant is represented by counsel, they cannot question the defendant in the absence of counsel without an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel in the attorney’s presence.
Yes, because the right to counsel attaches when the attorney communicates with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that prior cases like People v. Donovan, People v. Failla, and People v. Gunner established a broad protection of the right to counsel, not solely dependent on retained counsel. The critical factor is that the police were aware that Arthur had an attorney who was seeking to represent him. The court stated: “[O]nce the police know or have been apprised of the fact that the defendant is represented by counsel or that an attorney has communicated with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant, the accused’s right to counsel attaches; and this right is not dependent upon the existence of a formal retainer.”
The court rejected the argument that Stern needed to explicitly instruct the police not to question Arthur. Once an attorney enters the proceeding, the police are barred from questioning the defendant without a waiver of the right to counsel in the attorney’s presence. The court emphasized that “[o]nce an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant’s right to counsel.”
The court addressed the lack of objection to the detective’s testimony, noting that the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right warranted review despite the lack of a specific objection at trial.
The court concluded that both the written confession and the oral admissions were obtained in violation of Arthur’s right to counsel and were thus inadmissible. This case expands the right to counsel by clarifying that it attaches as soon as the police are aware an attorney is representing or attempting to represent a suspect, emphasizing the state’s duty to respect that right.