Justices agree to decide case that turns on acceptance of counsel (Oct. 1, 2008)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether an indigent defendant needs to affirmatively accept the appointment of counsel in order to invoke his Sixth Amendment protection from future police-initiated interrogation in the absence of the attorney.

On Oct. 24, 2002, a grand jury indicted Jesse Jay Montejo and Jerry Moore for the first-degree murder of Louis Ferrari, who was found by his wife after being murdered in their home on Sept. 5, 2002. The trials of the two men were severed, and in March 2005, a jury found Montejo guilty of first-degree murder. The trial court formally sentenced Montejo to death on May 13, 2005.

Montejo appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the police interrogated him after counsel had been appointed to represent him. Montejo argued that a letter he wrote to the victim’s widow, which was introduced into evidence at the trial, was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights and should have been excluded from evidence

In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed Montejo’s conviction and death sentence. According to the state high court, Montejo could not claim the protections of the Sixth Amendment rule of Michigan v. Jackson -- which bars police-initiated interrogation in the absence of counsel after a defendant has counsel -- because he did not take any affirmative steps to “accept” the counsel that had been appointed to represent him.

In asking the Supreme Court to review the case, attorneys for Montejo argue that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with decisions of at least four other state courts of last resort, along with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:

“The decision below is certain to lead to a proliferation of factual controversies over what
constitutes ‘acceptance’ and whether or not such ‘acceptance’ occurred in every case in which a defendant with appointed counsel has been subjected to police-initiated interrogation (particularly given that most States do not transcribe initial hearings at
which counsel is appointed.”

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Supreme Court accepted review of the case.

Question presented: Whether an indigent defendant must affirmatively accept the appointment of counsel to preclude future police interrogation in the absence the attorney.