Jones v. Cromwell

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his conviction on hit-and-run-related charges, where defendant alleged that trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress inculpatory statements he made during custodial interrogation after he had invoked his right to counsel. Record showed that: (1) after police gave defendant his Miranda warnings and was told that it was important for him to give his side of the story, defendant stated that he felt horrible and asked “So y’all can get a public pretender right now?”; (2) after there was some laughter, one detective stated: “they’re called public defenders;” (3) after more laughter, one detective stated: “due to time right now [i.e. 1:30 a.m.] we can’t…um;” and (4) defendant then asked about potential sentence for reckless homicide and then gave inculpatory statements. Ct. of Appeals found that there was no Fifth Amendment violation, even though state courts erred in finding that defendant did not intend to refer to public defender in his request, since his request for counsel was not unambiguous, where reasonable officer could have construed defendant’s question as to whether public defender could be contacted at that time, as opposed to request that public defender actually be produced at that time.