Harold S. Alston v. Walter Redman, Warden Charles M. Oberly, Iii, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and the State of Delaware

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statements made by the defendant were not inadmissible because made after invoking right to counsel, where the invocation was made “not within the context of custodial interrogation”
• finding that suspect in custody must at least be subject to impending interrogation to invoke Edwards protection
• holding defendant was not under imminent threat of interrogation while sitting in jail cell speaking with public defender
• rejecting as anticipatory invocation a letter from the defendant imprisoned on other charges, requesting that he not be questioned without counsel, signed two days before interrogation in question
• “[b]ecause the presence of both a custodial setting and official interrogation is required to trigger the Miranda right-to-counsel prophylactic, absent one or the other, Miranda is not implicated” (emphasis omitted)
• “Because the presence of both a custodial setting and official interrogation is required to trigger the Miranda right-to-counsel prophylactic, absent one or the 44 other, Miranda is not implicated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).