Texas v. Cobb
Encyclopedia
Texas v. Cobb, , is an important 2001 Supreme Court criminal procedure
decision which held that the Sixth Amendment
right to counsel is offense-specific and does not always extend to offenses that are closely related to those where the right has been attached. This decision reaffirmed the Court's holding in McNeil v. Wisconsin
(1991) by concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the onset of adversarial proceedings.
, but denied involvement in the disappearance of a woman and child from the same home. Cobb later retained an attorney
to represent him for the burglary charge but didn’t have one for the case involving the woman and child. While Cobb was free on bond in the burglary case, Cobb’s father contacted the police
to tell them his son had confessed to killing the woman and child. The police questioned Cobb, who waived his Miranda rights and confessed to both murders. He was subsequently charged with both murders. After his conviction and death sentence, Cobb appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
on the grounds that his confession had been obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Cobb argued the confession should’ve been suppressed because his right to counsel had been invoked once he had been charged in the burglary case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not offense-specific, the police could not have interrogated Cobb and his confession was inadmissible.
Criminal procedure
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated criminal law.-Basic rights:Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the...
decision which held that the Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
right to counsel is offense-specific and does not always extend to offenses that are closely related to those where the right has been attached. This decision reaffirmed the Court's holding in McNeil v. Wisconsin
McNeil v. Wisconsin
McNeil v. Wisconsin, , held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona, , are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.- Facts :...
(1991) by concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the onset of adversarial proceedings.
Overview
In 1994 Raymond Levi Cobb confessed to a home burglaryBurglary
Burglary is a crime, the essence of which is illicit entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offense. Usually that offense will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary...
, but denied involvement in the disappearance of a woman and child from the same home. Cobb later retained an attorney
Lawyer
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political...
to represent him for the burglary charge but didn’t have one for the case involving the woman and child. While Cobb was free on bond in the burglary case, Cobb’s father contacted the police
Police
The police is a personification of the state designated to put in practice the enforced law, protect property and reduce civil disorder in civilian matters. Their powers include the legitimized use of force...
to tell them his son had confessed to killing the woman and child. The police questioned Cobb, who waived his Miranda rights and confessed to both murders. He was subsequently charged with both murders. After his conviction and death sentence, Cobb appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for all criminal matters in the State of Texas, United States. The Court, which is based in the Supreme Court Building in Downtown Austin, is composed of a Presiding Judge and eight judges....
on the grounds that his confession had been obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Cobb argued the confession should’ve been suppressed because his right to counsel had been invoked once he had been charged in the burglary case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not offense-specific, the police could not have interrogated Cobb and his confession was inadmissible.
Reasoning
Critics of the 5–4 decision predicted that the offense-specific rule would endanger suspects’ rights and grant police too much power to carry out interrogations without the presence of counsel. The majority, in response, pointed to suspects’ abilities to invoke their Miranda rights during interrogations –rights which were waived by Cobb. The majority opinion also introduced the Blockburger test — which is used in determining double jeopardy — into Sixth Amendment jurisprudence when using its dictates to determine the distinctiveness of the crimes at issue in the case. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the majority opinion’s author, saw no reason to make a distinction between the meaning of the term “offense” in the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth.The Minority
This differed from the more ambiguous “closely related” test the minority felt was appropriate for Sixth Amendment considerations. The minority predicted the Blockburger test would prove difficult to administer for police — as it has proven to be for judges and lawyers — and would undermine other decisions where the “closely related” test was used.See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Blockburger v. United StatesBlockburger v. United StatesBlockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.-Facts and procedural history:...
, - McNeil v. WisconsinMcNeil v. WisconsinMcNeil v. Wisconsin, , held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona, , are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.- Facts :...
,