People v. Stroh, 48 N.Y.2d 1000 (1979)
When a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the desire for counsel during police interrogation, clarifying questions by the police are permissible, but once the suspect unequivocally requests an attorney, questioning must cease.
Summary
John Stroh was arrested and charged with murder. During interrogation, he made three statements to law enforcement officials. Before his first statement, Stroh stated he wanted “either an attorney or a priest to talk to.” After making the first two statements without an attorney present, Stroh told an Assistant District Attorney that he had asked for a lawyer earlier and nobody responded. The Court of Appeals held that the first two statements were admissible because Stroh’s initial request was ambiguous and clarified as a request for a priest. However, the third statement was inadmissible because Stroh explicitly requested counsel before making it.
Facts
John Stroh was arrested on July 8, 1975, for second-degree murder.
During questioning by a senior investigator, Stroh stated, “hold it, I would like to either have an attorney or a priest to talk to, to have present”.
The officer asked, “who do you want,” and Stroh replied, “contact a priest down in the parish, in Beacon”. The priest was contacted but did not arrive immediately.
Before the priest arrived, Stroh made an oral statement and then a typewritten statement.
Later, an Assistant District Attorney obtained a waiver of Stroh’s rights and questioned him. Stroh stated, “Well, I had asked for a lawyer before and nobody said nothing”. The assistant replied “O.K.” and continued to question Stroh, eliciting a third statement.
Procedural History
The defendant moved to suppress all three statements.
The lower courts ruled on the admissibility of the statements.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the lower court’s decision regarding the suppression motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s initial statement requesting “either an attorney or a priest” was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, thus requiring the cessation of questioning.
Whether the third statement, made after the defendant asserted he had asked for a lawyer previously, should have been suppressed.
Holding
1. No, because the officer permissibly clarified Stroh’s ambiguous request, and Stroh then specified that he wanted a priest. Questioning could continue until Stroh clearly invoked his right to counsel.
2. Yes, because once Stroh stated he had asked for a lawyer before, the authorities were obligated to cease questioning, and the third statement was therefore inadmissible.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that when a defendant makes an ambiguous request for counsel, it is permissible for the police to clarify the request, as long as they do not dissuade the defendant from exercising their rights. The Court distinguished between the initial ambiguous request for “either a priest or an attorney” and the subsequent statement to the Assistant District Attorney, where Stroh asserted he had previously requested an attorney.
Regarding the initial request, the court noted, “It was not improper for the officer to clarify the situation by asking ‘who do you want’, so long as this was not accomplished in a manner which would tend to dissuade defendant from exercising his rights.” Since Stroh clarified that he wanted a priest, the police were allowed to continue questioning him until he clearly requested an attorney.
However, regarding the third statement, the court stated, “when speaking with the assistant, defendant did indicate a desire for an attorney. It was only at this time that defendant’s statement reflected a request for legal counsel. And it was then that the law enforcement authorities became duty bound not to seek a waiver of defendant’s rights or proceed with questioning. Their failure to do so renders the third statement inadmissible.”
Chief Judge Cooke dissented in part, arguing that only the third statement should be suppressed, as the initial request was ambiguous and the officer properly clarified it. The dissent emphasized that the bright-line rule against questioning after a request for counsel should only apply when the request is unambiguous.