 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
TEXAS v. COBB
United States Supreme Court No. 99-1702
QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. May an accused make an effective unilateral waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), and Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988), when his only previous "assertion" of that right to counsel consisted of accepting appointment of counsel following indictment on a different, but related, crime nearly a year and a half earlier?
2. When an accused has been indicted for burglary, does his Sxith Amendment right to counsel attach, under Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985), and McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991), to questioning about a factually related murder when the eventual capital murder conviction is not based on the previously charged burglary as a predicate felony?
ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: December 6, 2000
Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of argumentI. The question in this case is not whether there is an "exception" to offense specificity of the Sixth Amendment, but rather the scope of the rule of exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment
A. The general rules: Massiah and McNeil
B. Maine v. Moulton
C. Other cases
D. Confusion defining "closely related"II. Exclusion of evidence should be limited to evidence material to guilt of the charged offense
Conclusion