In Edwards v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court concluded that once a suspect requests a lawyer, all questioning must cease until a lawyer in made available.  The core purpose of the Edwards decision was to insure that a confession is not the produce of unnecessary coercion.  In subsequent cases, the Edwards rule has been applied where there was a literal break in the interrogation.  Thus, for example, if a suspect evokes his right to a lawyer during an interrogation, and is released, a confession given days later during a second interrogation without a lawyer present, will be suppressed.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court visited the so-called “break in custody” rule in a case titled Maryland v. Shatzer.  There, the defendant requested an attorney in an initial interrogation.  Two-and-a-half years later, he was interrogated again,.  After he was given his Miranda rights and a polygraph test, he made a critical admission.  Although the high court in Maryland reversed the defendant’s conviction because it offended the rule in Edwards, that decision was reversed by the Court.  There was a suggestion in the opinion that a break of fourteen days between the first interrogation and the second interrogation would be enough to “ shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody.”