Screechin'Shirley's Next Case

Here's another interesting case that the Supremes will hear:

This case examines Scott M. Hambly’s conviction on one count of delivering cocaine based largely on statements he made to detectives, and whether he waived his right to a lawyer.

Two Washington County Sheriff’s Department detectives arrested Hambly on Sept. 22, 2003 after asking him to come to the police department to discuss “several drug transactions that he was involved in.” Hambly told the detectives he didn’t want to go, and he didn’t want to talk. But he argues that he was subjected to the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that his request for counsel was not honored.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Hambly’s self-incriminating statement did not stem from the functional equivalent of an interrogation and that it was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel.

This case originated in Washington County.

This one is all about whether the police elicited inculpatory statements, or whether the perp flapped his jaw voluntarily.

The Appeals Court thinks it was voluntary.