U.S. v. Alt

In prosecution on charge of attempted enticement of minor, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress statements made to police, even though defendant argued that his statements were made after he had invoked his right to counsel. Record showed that prior to police questioning, police read defendant his Miranda rights, during which defendant asked police “do you have a lawyer here,” to which police said “no,” and further told defendant that lawyer would be appointed at his initial appearance. Ct. of Appeals held that defendant’s inquiry about presence of lawyer did not constitute unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel and further found that defendant was merely inquiring into process if he did request to speak to counsel. Fact that police informed defendant that counsel would be provided at his initial appearance did not require different result. Dist. Ct. also did not err in denying defendant’s challenge to prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenge on sole African-American juror, where juror’s acknowledgment that his prior negative experience with law enforcement created “some unconscious bias” was legitimate race-neutral reason to strike said juror.