Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Confessions

Case Summary

Michigan courts issued several important decisions clarifying when confessions are admissible, how Miranda applies in nontraditional settings, and what constitutes a valid invocation of counsel. In Lafey, a spontaneous statement made during a pat‑down was admissible despite the absence of Miranda warnings. In Lewinski, a hospital‑bed confession was upheld because the setting was not coercive enough to constitute custody. In Burnett, the Court of Appeals held that police violated the defendant’s right to counsel by continuing questioning after he clearly requested an attorney. Finally, in Wade, a secretly recorded conversation with a girlfriend did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments because it was non‑coercive and occurred before the murder charge existed.

Background

Confession law centers on two constitutional protections:

• Fifth Amendment (Miranda) — protects against compelled self‑incrimination during custodial interrogation.
• Sixth Amendment — guarantees counsel after formal charges are filed and is offense‑specific.

Courts must determine:

1. Was the defendant in custody?
2. Was there interrogation?
3. Was the statement voluntary?
4. Was counsel invoked, and if so, was the request honored?

These cases illustrate how subtle factual differences determine whether a confession is admissible.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

• Lafey: Police questioned the defendant at his home before giving Miranda warnings. During a pat‑down, he spontaneously stated that “the shells I shot her with” were in his pocket. The Court of Appeals held the statement admissible because it was not the product of interrogation.
• Lewinski: Police questioned the defendant in a hospital bed while he was connected to medical equipment. Although the questioning was interrogation and the defendant was not free to leave, the setting was not coercive enough to constitute custody. Because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation, the confession was admissible.
• Burnett: While jailed in Georgia, the defendant repeatedly stated he wanted a lawyer before speaking about the Michigan murder. Police continued the interaction, and he eventually waived Miranda and confessed. The Court of Appeals held the waiver invalid because the defendant had clearly invoked counsel and did not reinitiate questioning. His request was not “scrupulously honored.”
• Wade: A girlfriend wore a recording device during a jail visit and obtained incriminating statements about a 2010 murder. The Court of Appeals held the Fifth Amendment was not violated because the conversation was non‑coercive and not a police interrogation. The Sixth Amendment did not apply because the murder charge had not yet been filed.

What’s at Stake

These cases shape the boundaries of confession law:

• Spontaneous statements remain admissible even in custody.

• Hospital or medical settings do not automatically create custody.

• Invocation of counsel must be honored immediately and fully.

• Undercover or private conversations are not custodial interrogation.

• Sixth Amendment rights attach only after formal charges.

Together, they reinforce that admissibility depends on the interplay between custody, interrogation, voluntariness, and timing.

In Closing

Lafey, Lewinski, Burnett, and Wade collectively clarify how Michigan courts evaluate confessions in varied and complex circumstances. They highlight that Miranda is not a blanket rule but a precise constitutional safeguard triggered only when custody and interrogation intersect. These decisions provide critical guidance for courts, law enforcement, and defense attorneys navigating confession‑related challenges.

Related Information, Laws and Articles

• Miranda Warning 
• Fifth Amendment — Self‑incrimination
• Sixth Amendment — Right to counsel
• When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
• Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
• Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477 (1981) — Invocation of counsel
• Massiah v United States, 377 US 201 (1964) — Sixth Amendment interrogation
• People v Lafey
• People v Lewinski
• People v Burnett
• People v Wade

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.