Case at Trial: State of Maryland v. Michael ShatzerIn August 2003, a detective interviewed Michael Shatzer regarding allegations that he had sexually abused his three-year-old child. At the time, Mr. Shatzer was incarcerated on an unrelated offense involving sexual abuse of another child. After Mr. Shatzer invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, the interview was terminated. The investigation was subsequently closed, only to be reopened two and a half years later, in January 2006, on the prompting of Mr. Shatzer's wife, who recognized that her child could make more specific allegations about Mr. Shatzer's alleged sexual abuse. Thereafter, in March 2006, another detective, who was aware that Mr. Shatzer had been under investigation, but was not aware that Mr. Shatzer had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, interviewed him. At this interview, Mr. Shatzer was advised of his Fifth Amendment rights, which he waived; he then confessed to specific instances of sexual abuse involving his child. Prior to trial, Mr. Shatzer moved to suppress the confessions he made in the March 2006 interview, arguing that his 2003 invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights was still applicable.

Preceding Cases

McNeil v. Wisconsin

The court reaffirms the general principle in Edwards v. Arizona, holding that, if the police initiate an encounter in the absence of counsel (assuming there has been no break in custody), the suspect's statements are presumed involuntary and therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial. This is "designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights."

Edwards v. ArizonaThe U.S. Supreme Court held that, when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to police-initiated interrogation after being again advised of his rights. An accused is not subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused has himself initiated further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. In the case of Edwards v. Arizona, the court ruled that a second interrogation of Edwards was at the insistence of the authorities, and his confession, made without having had access to counsel, did not amount to a valid waiver and hence was inadmissible.

1) Imagine you are a lawyer in the case of State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzerand you are arguing in support of Shatzer.

Which of the cited cases would best serve as a primary analogue for your argument in support of Shatzer?

Edwards v. Arizona

McNeil v. Wisconsin

1b) Given the preceding case that is most favorable to your position, which of the following facts from your case (State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer) presents the most relevant similarity in support of your position?

That Shatzer had been convicted of another crime, before the interrogation at issue in Maryland v. Shatzer

That Shatzer had asserted his right to counsel prior to confessing under a subsequent interrogation that was not initiated by him

That Shatzer signed a waiver of his right to counsel during subsequent interrogations

1c) With respect to the opposing precedent, which of the following facts from your case (State of Maryland v. Michael Shatzer) is most damaging for your position?

That more specific allegations could be made against Shatzer

That Shatzer signed a waiver of his right to counsel during subsequent interrogations

That there had been a substantial break in Shatzer's custody, and the second interrogator was unaware that Shatzer had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment rights