Texas v. Cobb
Headline: Court limits defendants’ lawyer-protection by ruling the Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, allowing police to question charged people about uncharged crimes unless those crimes are legally the same.
Holding: The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, so police may question a charged defendant about uncharged crimes unless those crimes are the same under the Blockburger test.
- Allows police to question charged suspects about uncharged crimes unless legally the same.
- Makes confessions after Miranda waivers more likely admissible in related-offense questioning.
- Reduces extra lawyer-protection for defendants in many factually related questioning scenarios.
Summary
Background
A man charged with burglary was appointed a lawyer for that charge. Police later questioned him about two murders; after Miranda warnings he waived them and confessed. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the murders were "closely related" to the burglary and suppressed the confession.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for a charged offense extends to factually related, uncharged crimes. Relying on McNeil, the Court held the right is "offense-specific" and adopted the Blockburger test: uncharged crimes count only if they are the same offense under that test. Because burglary and capital murder were not the same under Texas law and Blockburger, the Court ruled the confession admissible and reversed the Texas court. The Court did not decide whether the defendant validly waived the right to counsel.
Real world impact
The decision makes it more likely police may question people already represented for one charge about other, uncharged acts unless those acts are legally the same offense. Miranda warnings and the Fifth Amendment protections still apply, but the Court’s rule narrows the extra layer of Sixth Amendment protection in many cases. The ruling resolves a split among lower courts and changes how officers and prosecutors assess whether counsel must be contacted before questioning.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kennedy (concurring) questioned the basis of Michigan v. Jackson and urged limiting that rule; Justice Breyer (dissenting) argued the Court’s Blockburger approach weakens practical lawyer protections and preferred a "closely related" test.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?