Top Law Schools

Reading Montejo v. Louisiana... It strikes down Jackson and says that there is no Sixth Amendment analog to the Edwards rule, that once a suspect has invoked his Miranda rights he cannot be approached again (well, for two weeks). Therefore, under the Sixth Amendment, police can approach someone who has a lawyer as many times as they want, and begin interrogating him again.
How big a deal is this? Practically speaking, it doesn't do much. The advantages of Jackson were just that once a lawyer was appointed, there could be no interrogation without a lawyer under the Sixth Amendment. But 99% of the time, that falls within Miranda/Edwards anyway. The Court suggested that Montejo and his attorney (Don Verrilli, BTW) go home and file a new appeal under Edwards.
The only differences that I can conceive of are possibly different standards of proof for waiver under the overturned Jackson rule, the possibility that there would have been no two week allowance under Shatzer for Sixth Amendment rights, and the possibility that exclusion is broader under the Sixth Amendment. Is there any other practical difference?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... o#p5442104

This was my Montejo thread from last semester. There's some good discussion. I also inserted stuff from my outline, I got an A and there was a Montejo question on the exam, so I assume what I wrote in that thread is at least somewhat on track.

Geist13 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... o#p5442104

This was my Montejo thread from last semester. There's some good discussion. I also inserted stuff from my outline, I got an A and there was a Montejo question on the exam, so I assume what I wrote in that thread is at least somewhat on track.

Thanks. Reading your posts from then is funny, it's almost word for word what I'm struggling with. But I think in the end we reached similar conclusions, to the extent that we've reached conclusions.