Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Initiation of further communication under Edwards
Leading case
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983)
How courts have described it
holding that a defendant can negate his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights by initiating a conversation
Davie v. Mitchell, 547 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2008)
holding that the question, “Well, what is going to happen to me?” is enough to “initiate” conversation after requesting a lawyer
Anderson v. Terhune, 467 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2006)
holding that a defendant’s inquiry as to what might happen to him “initiated” conversation with police, triggering the exception to the Edwards rule
Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 1999)
concluding that "questions which evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about[an] investigation" constitute initiation under the Edwards rule
Howard v. Moore, 131 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 1997)
holding that defendant's invocation of his right to counsel was waived by the question, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?"
State v. Parker, 585 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. 1998)
Related doctrines
- Cessation of interrogation upon invocation of Miranda rights
- Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel
- No police-initiated reinterrogation after invocation of counsel without counsel present
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.