Letter from attorney should have ended interrogation of defendant
The landmark court decision of Miranda v. Arizona established that if a person in custody states that he or she wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, any statements made after invoking this right are involuntary, and may be excluded from evidence. However, what if a person indicates they wish to consult an attorney in some way other than speaking? Could statements made thereafter still be suppressed from evidence? The United States Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Santistevan discussed this issue.