New York Law Review

Tag: Arthur Rule

  • People v. McLean, 22 N.Y.3d 127 (2013): Police Can Rely on Attorney’s Statement of Discontinuance

    People v. McLean, 22 N.Y.3d 127 (2013)

    When police are told by a suspect’s lawyer that the lawyer no longer represents him, they may question the suspect without violating his right to counsel.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that police did not violate a defendant’s right to counsel when they questioned him after his attorney stated he no longer represented him. McLean, previously represented by Kouray for a robbery charge, provided information about a murder in exchange for a plea deal. Years later, after Baker implicated McLean in the murder, detectives spoke with Kouray, who stated he no longer represented McLean. Subsequently, the detectives questioned McLean, who provided a new statement implicating himself in the murder. The Court of Appeals found that the police reasonably relied on Kouray’s statement and were not required to take further steps to ascertain the status of the attorney-client relationship.

    Facts

    In 2003, McLean, represented by attorney Kouray, offered information about a murder to get a lighter sentence on a robbery charge. He provided a statement to Detective Sims in Kouray’s presence. In 2006, after Antoan Baker implicated McLean in the murder, Detective Sims contacted Kouray to inquire if he still represented McLean. Kouray stated he did not. Detectives then interviewed McLean in prison, after administering Miranda warnings, about the murder. McLean provided a new, more incriminating statement.

    Procedural History

    McLean was indicted for murder. His motion to suppress the 2006 statement was denied, and he pleaded guilty. His direct appeal, arguing a violation of his right to counsel, was initially rejected due to an insufficient record. McLean then moved to set aside his conviction under CPL 440.10, again arguing a right to counsel violation. The County Court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed. The dissenting Justice granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the police violated McLean’s right to counsel when they questioned him after his attorney told them that he no longer represented him.

    Holding

    Yes, because the police had a reasonable basis to believe that the attorney-client relationship had ceased when McLean’s attorney explicitly stated he no longer represented him.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on the principle established in People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325 (1968) and People v. West, 81 N.Y.2d 370 (1993), which generally prohibits questioning a defendant in the absence of counsel once an attorney has entered the proceeding, unless the defendant affirmatively waives his right to counsel in the attorney’s presence. However, the Court distinguished the present case from West, where police failed to make any inquiry regarding the status of the attorney-client relationship. Here, the police specifically asked Kouray if he still represented McLean, and Kouray responded in the negative.

    The Court reasoned that the police are not required to take all imaginable steps to protect a defendant’s right to counsel. The court stated: “Where they follow the rules laid down in our cases — rules that are, in general, highly protective of the attorney-client relationship — they need do no more.” The Court found that by inquiring with Kouray and receiving an unequivocal answer, the police discharged their burden to ascertain the status of the representation. This decision emphasizes the importance of direct inquiry with the attorney of record and provides a clear standard for police conduct in such situations. The Court indicated that its holding does not mean that “the right to counsel is interminable” as stated in West. It clarified that the outcome would be different if police had reason to believe the attorney-client relationship had ended, which in this case, they did.

  • People v. Ramos, 99 N.Y.2d 727 (2002): Knowledge of Representation Required to Invoke Right to Counsel

    People v. Ramos, 99 N.Y.2d 727 (2002)

    The right to counsel does not attach unless the police questioning a suspect know or should have known that the suspect is represented by counsel in any matter or that an attorney has communicated with them for the purpose of representing the suspect.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s statements to police were admissible because, although a Legal Aid lawyer had faxed letters to the State Police and District Attorney asserting the defendant’s right to counsel and silence, the local police department that arrested and questioned the defendant was unaware of these communications. The Court reasoned that the police must have actual or constructive knowledge of the attorney’s representation for the right to counsel to attach and preclude questioning.

    Facts

    The defendant had an unrelated case pending and was represented by a Legal Aid lawyer. After learning the defendant was wanted for murder, the Legal Aid lawyer faxed letters to the New York State Police and the Orange County District Attorney, asserting the defendant’s right to remain silent and to counsel. The lawyer did not contact the Monticello or Newburgh Police Departments. The Monticello Police arrested the defendant and notified the Newburgh Police. A detective from Newburgh picked up the defendant. The defendant waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements to the detective.

    Procedural History

    The defendant sought to suppress the statements made to the Newburgh Police, arguing his right to counsel had been violated. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when police questioned him after an attorney, who represented him in an unrelated matter, sent letters to other law enforcement agencies asserting his right to counsel and silence, but without notifying the police department conducting the interrogation.

    Holding

    No, because the police department questioning the defendant was not informed and could not be charged with the knowledge that the defendant had a lawyer who was asserting his rights.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on People v. Arthur, which held that “[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.” The Court distinguished this case, finding that the Newburgh Police Department was unaware of the Legal Aid lawyer’s communications to the State Police and the District Attorney. The Court stated, “A lawyer may not prevent the police from questioning a suspect by communicating only with law enforcement agencies not involved in the investigation.” The Court emphasized the importance of notice to the specific law enforcement agency conducting the interrogation. Because the Newburgh police “d[id] not know and [could]not be charged with knowledge that the suspect has a lawyer, the officer has no obligation to refrain from asking questions.”