May It Please the Court

Cast & Credits
Douglas Wambaugh Fyvush Finkel
John Littleton Don Cheadle Kimberly Brock Holly Marie Combs
Directed By David Kelley.

Running Time: 14 Minutes.

BY STEPHEN LEE /March 24, 2004

Brian Latham has been arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for first-degree murder. The primary evidence in the case is Latham's implicit confession to Deputy Ken Lakos. Although Latham never actually admitted to the murder, he did tell the police where to find the body when prompted by Deputy Lakos after Latham’s attorney, Douglas Wambaugh, had left the interrogation room.

Wambaugh has appealed Latham's conviction asserting the confession was illegally obtained and therefore should have been excluded from the trial. The appeal has gone to the US Supreme Court based on the Constitutional questions raised in the case: the violation of an accused individual’s 5^th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the 6^th Amendment right to legal counsel. Wambaugh will be arguing to overturn the conviction; prosecutor Don Littleton will be arguing to uphold the verdict against Latham.

In an appeal to the Supreme Court, both sides are usually given 15 to 30 minutes to summarize their arguments. It is the appellant's job to convince the Supreme Court that the lower court judge made a mistake, while it is the appellee's job defend the lower court's decision. Because the Supreme Court relies on Stare Decisis (rules of the past) and rarely overturns its own past decision, both sides will use precedent cases to back up their arguments in order to persuade the Justices that this particular case is similar to another case in which a decision has already been made. The justices often ask the parties questions about areas they think are important about the facts of the case or some point of law. These questions do not necessarily reflect how the entire court views the case or even that issue but they do give attorneys a chance to respond to an individual justice's possible concerns. Attorneys are warned never interrupt a justice who is asking a question.

THE FACTS

1. A young woman in Rome, Wisconsin, was reported missing after having been seen with Brian Latham the night before.

2. Latham was arrested on suspicion of murder, and given his Miranda rights by deputy Sheriff Ken Lakos.

3. Latham requested an attorney.

4. Latham met with his attorney, Douglas Wambaugh.

5. In the presence of Lakos, Wambaugh advised Latham to keep silent.

6. After Wambaugh left, Lakos began a conversation with Latham.

7. Knowing Latham was a devout Catholic, Lakos asked Latham where the body of the victim was so that she could receive last rites from a priest.

8. Latham told Lakos where to find the body.

9. Police found the body based on Latham’s directions.

10. District Attorney Don Littleton prosecuted Latham in state court, and obtained a conviction and the death penalty using Latham’s implicit confession.

11. Wambaugh appealed the conviction based on an illegally obtained confession violating Latham’s 5^th and 6^th Amendment rights.

12. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

THE LAW (Legal Precedent)

Gideon v Wainwright, 1963
- suspects have the right to have a competent attorney, if they cannot afford one it will be appointed by the court
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

suspects must be informed of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent before interrogation.

Brewer v. Williams, 1977
- a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer as soon as he is arrested
Edwards v. Arizona, 1981
- interrogation must stop when a suspect invokes the right to counsel.
Minnick v. Mississippi, 1990
- when counsel is requested, officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present whether or not the accused has already consulted with his attorney.
Rhode Island v Innis, 1990
- “interrogation” under Minnick refers not only to explicit questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to lead to an incriminating response from the suspect..

ASSIGNMENT

Using the organizational chart of the Wisconsin state court system, what would be the court of original jurisdiction in the case of People v Latham?
What levels of courts would Wambaugh, Latham's attorney, have to appeal to before he got to the US Supreme Court?
What procedures would Wambaugh have had to follow to get the Latham case heard by the Supreme Court?
How many justices would have to agree to hear Latham's appeal?
Why would the Supreme Court have agreed to hear this case?
What rights are Wambaugh asserting have been violated in Latham's case?
How does Wambaugh relate the precedent cases to the Latham case? How similar are they? How different?
What does Justice Ginsberg mean when she asks Wambaugh if he is asking for a ruling in law or a ruling on the facts? How does Wambaugh respond?
The Wisconsin District Attorney, Littleton, asks the Supreme Court to "overturn" another case, stating that it is 'bad law'. What does that mean? How often does that happen?
What would YOU decide in the case of Latham v Wisconsin? Why? (Remember the Doctrine of Stare Decisis!)

Answer these questions on the worksheet and turn them in at the end of the period today.