NATIONAL
POLICE GROUP FILED BRIEF IN TEXAS V. COBB
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION IN GRUESOME MURDER CASE
Washington,
DC x
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear today a case in which a state court placed an
unreasonable and serious obstacle to police officers who question suspects who
confess, even after compliance with Miranda. The National Association of
Police Organizations (NAPO) and its affiliate, the National Law Enforcement
Officers’ Rights Center, together with the Combined Law Enforcement
Association of Texas (CLEAT), filed an amici
curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief urged the Court to reverse a Texas state
court’s decision, which suppressed a voluntary and properly obtained
statement of a confessed murderer. That
court ruled that police should not have questioned the defendant about a
double murder, even after a waiver of his Miranda rights, because the
defendant had previously been charged with and was represented by counsel on a
burglary elsewhere, arising out of the same events. The police who questioned
the suspect knew nothing about the burglary charge and his representation by
counsel on it. Yet, the Texas
court held that all law enforcement officers in Texas are “imputed” (i.e.
presumed) to know about the prior charge, an unrealistic expectation. If not
reversed, this decision will significantly hamstring effective and good faith
police work in solving crimes, because officers cannot know every suspect’s
prior and pending charges.
Summary of the Facts and
Proceedings
In December 1993, Raymond Cobb brutally murdered
and secretly buried Margaret Owings after stabbing her during the course of
burglarizing her home. Then, when
her 2-year-old daughter Kori Rae awoke, he buried her alive beside her mother.
Cobb was questioned by Walker County police and confessed to the
burglary, although he denied any involvement in the disappearance of mother
and daughter. Cobb was indicted for burglary, for which counsel was appointed
to represent him. The police interrogated Cobb on the disappearance of the
mother and child, but he maintained his innocence
After being released on bail on the burglary
charge, with trial delayed indefinitely, Cobb moved to Odessa, Texas, over 500
miles away, to live with his father. Almost
two years later, Cobb confessed to his father that he had murdered the mother
and child. Cobb’s father
reported the confession to the Odessa police, who after contacting the Walker
County authorities, obtained a warrant and arrested Cobb. After he waived his Miranda rights, Cobb made a statement
confessing to the murders. At
that time, the Odessa police were unaware that Cobb had been indicted and had
counsel in the burglary case. Cobb
was eventually convicted of murder and sentenced to die.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned
Cobb’s conviction on the ground that his confession should have been
suppressed, because it was taken in violation of Cobb’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel. The court
stated, “Once the right to counsel attaches to [an] offense charged, it also
attaches to any other offense that is very
closely related factually to the offense charged.”
The court concluded that the double murder was “factually
interwoven” with the burglary and thus that Cobb’s right to counsel with
respect to questioning about the murders had already attached upon the
burglary indictment. The court
ruled that Cobb’s waiver of his right to counsel before his interview with
the Odessa police was automatically invalid because Cobb was presumed to have
“asserted his right to counsel [in the murder case] by accepting appointment
[of] counsel” on the burglary charge months earlier.
The court concluded that “once the right to counsel has attached and
has been invoked under the Sixth Amendment, any subsequent waiver by the
defendant during police interrogation is ineffective unless counsel has first
given permission for the interrogation.”
The Texas appellate court stated that it made no
difference that the police in Odessa had no knowledge of the burglary
indictment in Walker County and that they had acted in good faith. The court
ruled that the trial judge should “impute the State’s knowledge from one
state actor to another.” The court ignored the legitimate and good faith
efforts by the Odessa police.
Summary of NAPO’s position
NAPO Executive Director Robert T. Scully stated,
“This is an important case for law enforcement officers.
Questioning a potential suspect swiftly to follow up on new leads can
often be critical for solving a case. That
is especially true where, as here, the break in the case comes from a
suspect’s confession to a third party long after the crime.
Following up with a suspect in a frame of mind to confess is often the only
way to resolve a case, such as this one, that might otherwise remain unsolved
forever. The efforts by the
Odessa police in securing Cobb’s confession after waiver of his Fifth
Amendment privilege should be rewarded, not discouraged, and Cobb should be
held accountable for these heinous crimes. A rule that requires the automatic
suppression of a voluntary confession of a murderer, because he was previously
charged with another crime, will seriously impede legitimate police efforts to
question suspects and will result in fewer crimes being resolved.”
Scully continued, “The Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals has placed an impossible burden on law enforcement. All law enforcement officers in Texas would be automatically
presumed to have knowledge that 1) Cobb had been charged with burglary, 2) the
murder was factually related to the burglary, and 3) Cobb had counsel on the
burglary charge in Walker County. This
means that no Texas officer could have ever questioned Cobb on any aspect of
the murders without the presence of counsel. If this decision is not reversed,
law enforcement officers will take the risk that each time they
question a suspect and obtain a voluntary confession or other incriminating
information, the suspect’s statement may be thrown out as evidence through
no fault of the officers involved — an incredible result!”
Scully continued, “In addition, even if law
enforcement officers were aware, by chance, that the suspect had been charged
on a related crime elsewhere, they would have to investigate all of the
details of this other crime before questioning the suspect.
In essence, they would have to act as lawyers to determine whether the
crime they were investigating was ‘closely related’ to a crime for which
the suspect had already been charged, in order to decide if the Sixth
Amendment right applied.”
Scully concluded, “The result of this expansive
and unfounded interpretation of the Sixth Amendment creates unrealistic rules
for the law enforcement profession in Texas and other states following this
practice. The Texas court
basically ‘crossed its wires’, mixing up Sixth Amendment
right-to-counsel-at-time-of-charge case law with Fifth Amendment
privilege-against-self-incrimination case law, with serious consequences for
public safety. We hope that the
U.S. Supreme Court will agree with our position.”
FOR A COPY OF THE BRIEF OR FOR INTERVIEWS OF
NAPO’S GENERAL COUNSEL,
PLEASE CALL JODY COUSER AT 202-842-3560.
The National
Association of Police Organizations is a national coalition of 4,000 police
associations and unions, representing 225,000 sworn law enforcement officers
and 11,000 retired officers, as well as 100,000 citizens dedicated to
effective law enforcement and the due process and other rights of officers.
The Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas represents police
officer associations and unions representing 12,000 officers and is the
largest statewide law enforcement organization in Texas.
-###-