Court opens with case on prisoner's bid for lawyer

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court began its new term Monday by indicating a willingness to limit how long a suspect's request for a lawyer should remain valid, and new Justice Sonia Sotomayor wasted little time in letting her voice be heard by questioning the lawyers.

The high court seemed skeptical of defense lawyers' arguments that police should be banned from talking to a suspect without a lawyer present if the suspect had asked for a lawyer in related -- and even unrelated -- cases years earlier.

Michael Shatzer was imprisoned on a child sexual abuse conviction in 2003 when police questioned him about allegations that he also sexually abused his 3-year-old son. When Shatzer refused to talk to a police officer and asked for a lawyer, the questioning ended.

In 2006, Shatzer's son was old enough to offer details. When a different police officer approached Shatzer in prison two years and seven months later, Shatzer waived his Miranda rights, made incriminating statements and was eventually convicted.

Lower courts threw out his confession because he asked for an attorney when he was first questioned in 2003.

Allowing that decision to stand would cause havoc with police investigations, Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler said. "A defendant who invokes anywhere at any time is forever immune from being questioned by the police," he said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Shatzer's attorney, public defender Celia Davis, if her interpretation of the law meant police can't talk to a suspect who asked for a lawyer when being questioned about joyriding in 1999, but is arrested for murder in 2009.

"Yes, it does," she replied.

"You don't think that's a ridiculous application of the rule?" Alito said.

Davis said the request for a lawyer should apply even if 40 years later the person is a suspect in a civil rights violation that related to the murder.

"You are saying for 20, 40 years, he's now immunized from being reapproached by police?" said Sotomayor, a former prosecutor and federal trial judge.

Sotomayor, who was confirmed as the replacement for retired Justice David Souter during the summer, jumped into the questioning early and often. The newest justice peppered the arguing lawyers with as many questions as her eight more experienced colleagues, although a couple of times she forgot to turn her microphone on and had to repeat her questions.

Sotomayor even jockeyed to get in her questions at the same time as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- the court's other female justice -- although both times she deferred to the more experienced justice.

Sotomayor's willingness to jump in immediately with questions early in her tenure is commonplace for new justices. Alito, Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer all did the same, questioning lawyers in their first days on the court.

Almost all the justices asked questions during Monday's arguments. Justice Clarence Thomas rarely speaks in the courtroom and didn't ask any questions in this case.

By law, the court's new term starts on the first Monday in October. But Sotomayor took part in her first argument a month ago in a campaign finance case that has yet to be decided.

The justices also used the first day of the term to clear their calendar, declining to hear appeals in slightly less than 2,000 cases. Those included appeals from:

* A former Florida high school student, who is challenging a state law that requires students to say the Pledge of Allegiance unless their parents have given written permission excusing them.

* The Roman Catholic diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., which is trying to prevent the release of documents generated by lawsuits against priests for alleged sexual abuse.

* A pro-life group that was trying to force Illinois to issue "Choose Life" license plates.

The justices seemed to have differing opinions on how to solve the Shatzer lawyer request case.

Justice John Paul Stevens suggested setting a rule that prisoners do not have to talk to police, and if they do they are waiving their Miranda rights. Other justices suggested setting a time limit on how long a request for a lawyer should be valid.

Alito asked Davis if she had a suggestion for a time limit.

"Anything over two years and seven months," she said, prompting laughter from the justices and the crowd in the packed courtroom.

The case is Maryland v. Shatzer, 08-680.