Michigan v. Jackson

Summary

The Court held that when a defendant requests counsel at arraignment or a similar proceeding, police may not initiate postarraignment interrogation before counsel is made available. Any purported waiver in response to such police-initiated questioning is invalid, so the postarraignment statements were improperly admitted and the judgments were affirmed. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting, would have declined to extend the prophylactic rule to the Sixth Amendment.