Ricardo H. Robinson v. Robert Glen Borg, Warden

Appellant Ricardo H. Robinson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He maintains that the state trial court improperly admitted incriminating statements he made to police during custodial interrogation, in violation of his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Robinson asserts two independent grounds for relief. First, he claims that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel during interrogation because he did not understand that he had a right to appointed counsel. Second, he contends that, prior to making the inculpatory statements admitted at trial, he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. We agree with Robinson that his statement “I have to get me a good lawyer, man. Can I make a phone call?” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel, requiring that the interrogation cease. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Robinson’s petition for habeas corpus relief.

I. FACTS

Following a jury trial, Ricardo Robinson was convicted of first-degree (felony) murder, mayhem, assault with a caustic substance, and conspiracy to commit mayhem. Part of the evidence introduced…

dissenting:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 542-43 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1663 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (White, J., dissenting).

Today, these poignant and prophetic words lose their abstract quality as the prison doors that closed behind Ricardo H. Robinson in 1982 are unlocked. But my quarrel here is not with Miranda itself; it is with the manner in which Miranda and its progeny are applied by my respected colleagues to the facts and legal circumstances of this case. In that connection, this case as I see it is mostly about the prophylactic rules and remedies designed by the judiciary “to promote sensitivity to constitutional values through [their] deterrent effect.” 1 Duckworth v. Eagan, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 2882 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). (O’Connor, J., concurring). Thus, it is appropriate in my view for the judiciary to be mindful of Justice White’s concerns and to monitor carefully the costs of these rules as they are applied to the cases that come before us. Lest we lose sight of these costs, I begin with a description of Robinson’s unspeakable conduct, for which a California jury found him guilty of murder with the special circumstances of torture and murder for financial…

918 F.2d 1387 Ricardo H. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert Glen BORG, Warden, et al., Respondent-Appellee. No. 89-55126. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 1, 1989. Decided Oct. 30, 1990. As Amended Dec. 11, 1990. Shauna Weeks (law student), William J. Genego, Charles D. Weisselberg, Post Conviction Justice Project, University of Southern California Law Center, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Donald E. De Nicola, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before NORRIS, REINHARDT and TROTT, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Ricardo H. Robinson appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He maintains that the state trial court improperly admitted incriminating statements he made to police during custodial interrogation, in violation of his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Robinson asserts two independent grounds for relief. First, he claims that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel during interrogation…