Call Now For Help


Confession made Shortly After Miranda Warnings


by in DWI Defense

State v. Damu Alston, ? N.J. ?, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 15 (January 20, 2011) – Judgment admitting confession into evidence at trial affirmed. “This appeal requires this Court to consider whether the statements made by defendant immediately after he signed the waiver of his rights were an ambiguous assertion of his right to counsel and whether the detective’s questions in response constituted a permissible clarification….

Our analysis of the words that defendant chose does not lead us to the conclusion he urges this Court to reach. The initial statement that he made, ‘should I not have a lawyer?’ was, in actuality, not an assertion of a right, ambiguous or otherwise. Rather, it was a question, posed to the investigating officer, that amounted to defendant’s request for advice about what the detective thought that defendant should do. The response of the officer, which was entirely appropriate under the circumstances, was a simple request for clarification, in which he asked ‘[do y]ou want a lawyer?’ If there were any doubt about the fact that defendant was seeking advice, his next words were clear, because in answer to the question about whether he actually wanted a lawyer, he said ‘No, I am asking you guys, man.’ Nothing in that response amounted to even an ambiguous request for counsel…. As the exchange between the detective and defendant continued, defendant asked the hypothetical question about the mechanics of getting a lawyer ‘in here with me,’ to which the officer gave the response that was dispositive for the motion court. Without repeating the words used by defendant and the detective in their entirety, the context of the exchange, which immediately followed defendant’s emphatic response that he was not asking for counsel, makes it clear that defendant’s question was simply that, another question, rather than an ambiguous assertion of his right. The detective’s immediate response, ‘that’s on you’ is no different from the statement ‘that’s your call, … , and nothing in those words is inaccurate. In context, those words are no more than a reminder that the choice is defendant’s, and not the detective’s, to make; they are no different than had the detective responded by using the familiar phrase ‘that’s up to you.’… Although in responding to defendant’s query about the mechanics of securing counsel, re-reading the portion of the Miranda warnings about the appointment of counsel might have been the more prudent course, on balance, we conclude that the detective’s response was a fair recitation of the right to counsel and the right to have the interrogation cease. More to the point, because the detective was not obligated to give defendant advice about whether he should assert any of his rights, we cannot fault his choice of words as he sought to clarify defendant’s requests while avoiding giving him the advice he was seeking.”






*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.