THE STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
EDELBERTO LAINEZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Once a suspect requests counsel, state agents cannot reinitiate interrogation on any offense during custody unless the lawyer is present.
[1] Once a suspect in custody requests the assistance of counsel, no state agent may reinitiate interrogation on any offense during that period of custody unless the lawyer i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Once a suspect has requested the help of a lawyer, no state agent can reinitiate interrogation on any offense throughout the period of custody unless the lawyer is present.”
Court citing Traylor v. State to establish the operative rule protecting invocation of right to counsel
Edelberto Lainez was in state custody and invoked his right to counsel. The State appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade Cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Cut Off Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0755 Lower Tribunal No. F20-351
________________
The State of Florida,
Appellant,
vs.
Edelberto Lainez,
Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 966 (Fla. 1992) (“Once
a suspect has requested the help of a lawyer, no state agent can reinitiate
interrogation on any offense throughout the period of custody unless the
lawyer is present[.]”); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975) (stating
“that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has
decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his ‘right to cut
off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’” (quoting Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, 474, 479 (1966))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)