The Right to Counsel

Most of us are more or less familiar with so-called Miranda rights. Miranda rights derive from the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). In Miranda the United States Supreme Court stated: "[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says may be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to presence of any attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."

The Miranda court reasoned that the "warnings" are required because rights are meaningless if those entitled to the rights are unaware of the rights.

In Commonwealth v. Lajoie (Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 18-P49, March 15, 2019), the defendant was taken into custody and advised:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can be used against you at trial.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the Commonwealth at no expense and prior to any questioning.

If you decide to waive your Fifth Amendment rights pursuant to Miranda, you may stop answering questions at any time if you desire.

Lajoie made statements that were used against him--at a trial accusing him of an event alleged to have occurred fifteen years earlier--and was convicted.

Lajoie appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, contending that he was not advised that he was entitled "to presence of an attorney." The Massachusetts Appeals Court concluded that the “warning” was sufficient and the statements properly used at trial.

Was Lajoie made aware that he was entitled to an attorney then and there--before any questioning took place? How hard would it have been to tell Mr. Lajoie, “You are entitled to presence of an attorney before you answer any questions I ask you today. Do you desire an attorney today?” Wouldn't this question have made it less likely that Mr. Lajoie may not have fully understood the rights afforded to him at that moment?

The proper outcome is this case would have been to order a new trial without using the statements. If a conviction results, no concern exists that Mr. Lajoie was deprived of constitutional rights. If no conviction results, that outcome avoids concern that it was necessary to deny a defendant his rights to obtain the conviction--a very troubling circumstance. Essentially, if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a suspect's constitutional rights were compromised, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the suspect. This point would seem to be beyond debate.

Commonwealth v. Lajoie (Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 18-P49, March 15, 2019)