The case below highlights how important it is for an accused to exercise their right to remain silent at every stage during an interrogation. Here, the Defendant claimed that she requested her right to an attorney prior to the video recording of her interrogation. However, there was not any evidence of this request other than the Defendant’s own testimony. The trial judge was given the task to judge her credibility. The Defendant argued the she did request her right to counsel.  However, while being interrogated, while being recorded via a video recorder, the Defendant waived her right to remain silent and her right to counsel.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the standard:

First, courts must determine whether the accused actually invoked his right to counsel. See, e.g., Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S., at 484–85 (whether accused “expressed his desire” for, or “clearly asserted” his right to, the assistance of counsel); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 444–45 (whether accused “indicate[d] in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wish[ed] to consult with an attorney before speaking”). Second, if the accused invoked his right to counsel, courts may admit his responses to further questioning only on finding that he

(a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he had invoked. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. at 485, 486, n.9.


This case can be found at the following link:


Criminal Defense Lawyer, criminal defense attorney, family law lawyer, family law attorney, car accident attorney, car accident lawyer, injury lawyer, injury attorney, worker’s comp lawyer, worker’s comp attorney. Attorney  in Camden, South Carolina. Attorney in Charleston, South Carolina.  Lawyer in Charleston, SC. Lawyer in Camden, SC.