Publication Date
7-1991
Document Type
Casenote
Abstract
In Minnick v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court held that when counsel is requested by an accused in custody, interrogation of the accused must cease, and officials may not re-initiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney. The privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the fifth amendment and as developed into its modern form nearly a quarter-century ago in Miranda v. Arizona provided the backbone of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's holding clarifies the previously unclear issue of whether counsel's presence on behalf of an accused is required at any interrogation subsequent to the moment an individual has invoked his right to counsel. Equally important, the Court re-enforced and expanded its previous holding in Edwards v. Arizona that an accused, having expressed his right to counsel, is not subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates any further communication with officials
Recommended Citation
Hotard, Gabe Jr.
(1991)
"Minnick v. Mississippi: Additional Protection for the Criminal Defendant,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 42:
No.
4, Article 19.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol42/iss4/19