He then placed the truck into park, got out of the truck, and appears to have shot Martin again. 477(1981),] made it clear that a suspect may waive his previously asserted right to counsel and respond to interrogation.
At that point, Mc Millan quickly got back into the truck and sped out of the parking lot. However, when an accused has invoked his right to counsel, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that the accused responded to police-initiated interrogation after again being advised of his Miranda rights.” Ex parte Williams, 31 So.3d 670, 676 (Ala.2009).“ ‘[A]n accused ․ having expressed his desire to deal with police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police.’ Edwards v.
Calvin Mc Millan was convicted of capital murder for the intentional murder of James Bryan Martin by shooting him ii the course of a first-degree robbery, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. And therefore under Branch we would just ask that we not be required to defend what wasn't even an objectable [sic] striking of the jury.“THE COURT: We've got three African-Americans remaining on the jury? Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court set out the components of a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection.
Code 1975, and for the intentional murder of James Bryan Martin by shooting him inside a vehicle, see § 13A-5-40(a)(17), Ala. The trial court sentenced Mc Millan to death following the jury's 8-4 advisory verdict of life imprisonment without parole. Mc Millan argues on appeal that the police continued interrogating him after he had invoked his right to counsel because Investigator Pelham asked him to initial the waiver form, indicating that he was not waiving his right to counsel. “[District Attorney]: Who are not alternates.“THE COURT: Out of the 12? In addition to showing that the State used peremptory challenges to remove members of a cognizable group to which he belongs and relying upon the fact that peremptory strikes permit discrimination, a claimant also must show that these facts and any other relevant facts raise an inference that the prosecutor used his strikes in a discriminatory manner.
Neither officer could identify the driver, because they saw him only from behind.