People v. Glover, 87 N.Y.2d 838 (1995)
A suspect’s invocation of the right to counsel must be unequivocal to trigger the protections of the New York Constitution, and a statement that simultaneously requests and negates the need for counsel is not considered unequivocal.
Summary
Glover was taken to the police station for questioning about a murder. After initially speaking freely, he mentioned wanting to call a friend to get a lawyer upon being confronted with incriminating evidence. However, almost immediately thereafter, he retracted this statement, saying he did not want a lawyer and would talk to the police. The New York Court of Appeals held that Glover’s initial request for counsel was not unequivocal because he immediately negated it. Therefore, his subsequent statements were admissible, and his constitutional rights were not violated.
Facts
Police brought Glover to the station for questioning regarding a murder investigation. He initially spoke freely with the police. When officers confronted him with a bloodstained T-shirt found outside his apartment, Glover stated he wanted to call a friend to get a lawyer. He then suggested calling his mother instead. Before the officer dialed, Glover stated, “Hang up the telephone. I do not want a lawyer. I’ll talk to you.” Between 30 and 60 seconds elapsed between Glover’s initial request and retraction. Glover then made incriminating statements, some spontaneously and others in response to questioning.
Procedural History
The lower courts found Glover’s statements admissible. Glover appealed, arguing his statements were obtained in violation of his right to counsel under the New York Constitution because he had invoked his right to counsel before making the incriminating statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, upholding the admissibility of Glover’s statements.
Issue(s)
Whether statements made by a suspect after an initial request for counsel, which is immediately retracted, are admissible in court, or whether that initial request, even if retracted, triggers the constitutional right to counsel, thus barring subsequent questioning without an attorney present.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s request for counsel was not unequivocal. Glover’s statement expressing a desire for counsel was immediately negated, therefore his subsequent statements were admissible in court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on established New York precedent holding that when a defendant unequivocally requests counsel, any subsequent waiver of that right without counsel is ineffective, citing People v. Esposito, 68 NY2d 961 and People v. Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203. However, the court emphasized that this protection only applies when the request for counsel is clear and unambiguous, citing People v. Hicks, 69 NY2d 969, 970 and People v. Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730. The court determined that whether a request is unequivocal depends on the circumstances, including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression, and specific words used, citing People v. Johnson, 79 AD2d 201, 204. The court found that Glover’s statement wanting to call a friend for a lawyer was immediately negated, therefore the lower court’s finding that the request was not unequivocal was supported by evidence and not reviewable. As such, Glover’s constitutional rights were not violated, and his statements were deemed admissible. The court highlighted the importance of clear communication from the defendant regarding their desire for counsel. A simultaneous request and retraction creates ambiguity, preventing the right to counsel from attaching.