Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Johnson — dissenting
February 3, 2026354 Conn. 96
Summary
The dissent would hold that the detective violated the state constitutional stop-and-clarify requirement by responding inaccurately to the defendant's equivocal request for counsel and by continuing toward interrogation rather than clarifying whether he wanted counsel. It would further conclude that rereading the rights and obtaining a second waiver did not cure the misinformation or establish a knowing and intelligent waiver, and that the resulting error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice D'Auria, joined by Justices McDonald and Ecker, would reverse and remand for a new trial, while dissenting only from part II of the majority opinion.