Leshannon Jerome Shelly, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent.

Summary

The court held that the applicable standard requires an accused who reinitiates communication after invoking the right to counsel or silence to be reminded of the rights and to knowingly and voluntarily waive them. Shelly’s initial reference to a lawyer was equivocal, but he later unequivocally invoked his right to silence, after which the detective continued interrogation and used coercive tactics; his subsequent confession was therefore inadmissible. The error was not harmless because the confession was repeatedly presented to and emphasized before the jury. Lawson, J., dissenting, would have dismissed the case for lack of conflict jurisdiction.