People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203 (1980)
Once a suspect in custody unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel, both the police and the prosecutor have a duty to scrupulously honor that request and refrain from further questioning until counsel is provided; a subsequent waiver of rights obtained without honoring the initial request is invalid.
Summary
Cunningham, while in police custody, explicitly refused to make a statement without an attorney. Instead of assisting him in obtaining counsel, the police returned him to a holding pen. Several hours later, after some cooperation from Cunningham, they obtained a waiver of his rights and proceeded with questioning. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, vacated the plea, and granted the motion to suppress, holding that Cunningham’s initial request for counsel was not scrupulously honored, rendering the subsequent waiver invalid, even if the error wasn’t adequately preserved at trial.
Facts
The defendant, Cunningham, was in police custody and being questioned by an Assistant District Attorney. During the questioning, Cunningham explicitly stated that he would not make a statement without the presence of an attorney. Instead of assisting Cunningham in obtaining legal representation, the police returned him to a holding pen. Hours later, after the defendant cooperated to some extent, the police sought and obtained a waiver of his rights, and continued questioning him.
Procedural History
The defendant entered a plea, presumably based on evidence obtained during the questioning. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, vacated the plea, and granted the motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the questioning. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the police and prosecutor scrupulously honored the defendant’s right to counsel when, after the defendant refused to make a statement without an attorney, they failed to assist him in obtaining counsel and instead obtained a waiver of his rights hours later.
Holding
No, because the police and prosecutor became duty bound not to question defendant without first scrupulously honoring his right to counsel. The police failed to do so by not taking steps to assist defendant in obtaining counsel and instead obtaining a waiver of his rights hours later.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on established precedent holding that when a defendant in custody requests counsel, the police and prosecutor have a duty to scrupulously honor that request. The Court emphasized that this duty requires more than simply ceasing questioning temporarily. It necessitates actively assisting the defendant in obtaining legal representation, or at the very least, refraining from any actions that undermine the defendant’s ability to secure counsel. The court found that merely returning Cunningham to a holding pen after he invoked his right to counsel, and then later obtaining a waiver, did not meet the standard of “scrupulously honoring” his request. The court stated, “In these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant’s refusal to answer questions without the aid of counsel was scrupulously honored.” The Court also noted that a violation of the right to counsel may be reviewed even in the absence of a formal objection at trial, underscoring the fundamental importance of protecting this right.