Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 Ala. 548

219 So.2d 377

Square v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 14, 1968

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1968-11-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Defendant says the so-called warning is defective in that defendant is not advised that the state will provide a lawyer to represent and advise defendant and to be present at and prior to the questioning if defendant desires a lawyer at that time. “Defendant’s point is well taken. The warning read to defendant not only does not say to defendant that the state will provide a lawyer for him prior to any questioning but does state: “‘ * * * We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to Court * * * ’ (Emphasis Supplied) "The italicized clause suggests that a lawyer will be provided only if defendant goes to court and negates the idea that a lawyer will be appointed ‘prior to any questioning.’ ””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 45 Ala. App. 178 - Lloyd v. State, 396 So. 2d 137 - Brown v. State

Relies on McCants v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-11-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1989 · most notably Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), Wright v. North Carolina Et Al. (1974)

4 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

400196819701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON REHEARING

COLEMAN, Justice.

¶2In brief on application for rehearing, the state cites McCants v. State, 282 Ala. 397, 211 So.2d 877, where six justices of this court, including the writer, agreed that a confession had been admitted into evidence against a defendant without error.

¶3In McCants, the warning given to defendant prior to his confessing was substantially the same as the warning given in the instant case and contained the following statement:

“ ‘ … We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to Court. … ’ ” (282 Ala. at page 399, 211 So.2d at page 878)

¶4In the instant case, defendant was indigent and was represented by court-appointed counsel in the trial court and in this court. In McCants, defendant was not indigent. The opinion indicates that on August 20th, defendant’s mother had told Detective Bell that she had contacted the attorney who did represent defendant, both in the trial and on appeal, and had left a fee at the attorney’s office. The confession was made on August 22nd, after the warning had again been read to defendant and after he had signed the waiver when members of his family were present. His sister signed as a witness. Where defendant’s family had already employed counsel to represent him, he could scarcely have been mislead by the statement that a lawyer would be appointed “if and when you go to Court.” The situation is different in the instant case.

¶5Opinion extended.

¶6Application overruled.

All the Justices concur.
/283/ala/548 · .json · Public domain