Moran v. Burbine

The Court held that the officer’s failure to inform the defendant of the attorney’s telephone call did not deprive him of information essential to his ability to knowingly waive his Fifth Amendment rights. Events occurring outside of a suspect’s presence and entirely unknown to him have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional protection. Once it is demonstrated that a suspect’s decision to waive his rights was uncoerced, that he at all times knew he could stand silent and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the government’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is valid as a matter of law.

Further, the conduct of the police did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This right initially attaches only after the first formal charging procedure, whereas the government’s conduct here occurred before the defendant’s initial appearance. The Sixth Amendment becomes applicable only when the government’s role shifts from investigation to accusation through the initiation of the adversarial judicial process. Nor was the asserted government misconduct so offensive as to deprive the defendant of the fundamental fairness guaranteed by due process. Although on facts more egregious than those presented here police deception might rise to a level of a due process violation, the conduct challenged falls short of the kind of misbehavior that shocks the sensibilities of civilized society.