declining to create exception absent clear indication from United States Supreme Court
How later courts described this case
- declining to create exception absent clear indication from United States Supreme Court
- to allow admission of confession because initiating “interrogators were not informed of [a] request for counsel” would “be inconsistent with” and “might permit ... circumvention of” Edwards
- declining to extend Stone to Miranda claims
- “good faith exception to Edwards rule ... might permit relatively easy circumvention of that rule”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring.
In White II, I agreed with District Judge Morgan in construing the defendant’s brief conversation with a police official not to be a request for counsel, although it was a close determination. The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, had found otherwise. 1 Since then I have been reminded by Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539 , 101 S.Ct. 764 , 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981), that Judge Morgan and I are not that free to disregard that factual conclusion of the state court. That is, I agree, as it should be.
Now, in view of Edwards, I am compelled to concur in directing the writ to issue as I see nothing in the record to suggest that White “initiated” the contact with the officers which led to his confession, although there were other circumstances examined in our first opinion which suggested that there had been a waiver of the right to counsel if in fact counsel had been requested.
Nor am I ready to extend Stone v. Powell in this case. Therefore, I join in Judge Swygert’s analysis of this case in its new configuration.
About 13 years have passed since the defendant was found guilty of murder in the state trial. It is regrettable that our judicial processes bring us to this conclusion at such a late date that the practical chances of a retrial are surely remote.
. People v. White, 61 Ill.2d 288 , 335 N.E.2d 457 (1975).