context: Since Leyva, every state appellate court to consider the pre-waiver and post-waiver distinction, with only one exception, has applied its reasoning or similar rationale.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.parenthetical: acknowledging that the holding in Davis is limited to an alleged invocation of the right to counsel in the post-waiver context, but choosing to also apply it in the pre-waiver context where the Supreme Court has "left open the issue"
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Collins, 937 So.2d 86, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (holding that Davis did not apply where the defendant’s questions regarding a lawyer were asked “before she signed the waiver-of-rights form”); Noyakuk v. State, 127 P.3d 856, 869 (Alaska Ct.App.2006) (“[T]he Davis rule (that interrogating officers need not interrupt their questioning to clarify the suspect’s wishes) applies only to a post-Mmmda-waiver setting.”); Alvarez v. State, 15 So.3d 738, 745 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2009) (“[A]n ambiguous waiver must be clarified before initial questioning.”); State v. Holloway, 760 A.2d 223, 228 (Me.2000) (declining to extend Davis “to require an unambiguous invocation of ... the right to an attorney in the absence of a prior waiver”); Freeman v. State, 158 Md. App. 402, 857 A.2d 557, 573 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2004) (“[A] careful reading of Davis reveals that the Supreme Court’s bright line rule, requiring an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel, pertains to a situation in which the defendant had previously waived his right and then, during the interrogation, arguably sought to exercise his rights.”); State v. Tuttle, 650 N.W.2d 20, 28 (S.D.2002) (“Davis, in sum, applies to an equivocal postwaiver invocation of rights.”); but see In re Christopher K., 217 Ill.2d 348, 299 Ill.Dec. 213, 841 N.E.2d 945, 964-65 (2005) (acknowledging that the holding in Davis is limited to an alleged invocation of the right to counsel in the post-waiver context, but choosing to also apply it in the pre-waiver context where the Supreme Court has “left open the issue”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 857 A.2d 557, 573
citation_b.parenthetical: "[A] careful reading of Davis reveals that the Supreme Court's bright line rule, requiring an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel, pertains to a situation in which the defendant had previously waived his right and then, during the interrogation, arguably sought to exercise his rights."
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Collins, 937 So.2d 86, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (holding that Davis did not apply where the defendant’s questions regarding a lawyer were asked “before she signed the waiver-of-rights form”); Noyakuk v. State, 127 P.3d 856, 869 (Alaska Ct.App.2006) (“[T]he Davis rule (that interrogating officers need not interrupt their questioning to clarify the suspect’s wishes) applies only to a post-Mmmda-waiver setting.”); Alvarez v. State, 15 So.3d 738, 745 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2009) (“[A]n ambiguous waiver must be clarified before initial questioning.”); State v. Holloway, 760 A.2d 223, 228 (Me.2000) (declining to extend Davis “to require an unambiguous invocation of ... the right to an attorney in the absence of a prior waiver”); Freeman v. State, 158 Md. App. 402, 857 A.2d 557, 573 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2004) (“[A] careful reading of Davis reveals that the Supreme Court’s bright line rule, requiring an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel, pertains to a situation in which the defendant had previously waived his right and then, during the interrogation, arguably sought to exercise his rights.”); State v. Tuttle, 650 N.W.2d 20, 28 (S.D.2002) (“Davis, in sum, applies to an equivocal postwaiver invocation of rights.”); but see In re Christopher K., 217 Ill.2d 348, 299 Ill.Dec. 213, 841 N.E.2d 945, 964-65 (2005) (acknowledging that the holding in Davis is limited to an alleged invocation of the right to counsel in the post-waiver context, but choosing to also apply it in the pre-waiver context where the Supreme Court has “left open the issue”).