Texas v. Cobb

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Gregory S. Coleman (Austin, Texas, argued the cause for the petitioner)
Lisa Schiavo Blatt (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of the court, supporting the petitioner)
Roy E. Greenwood (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
99-1702
Petitioner: 
Texas
Respondent: 
Cobb
Opinion: 
532 U.S. 162 (2001)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Texas v. Cobb , 532 U.S. 162 (2001)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1702)
Facts of the Case: 

In 1994, while under arrest for an unrelated offense, Raymond Levi Cobb confessed to a home burglary. Cobb, however, denied knowledge of the disappearance of a woman and child from the home. In 1995, after counsel was appointed to represent him in the burglary case, Cobb confessed to killing the woman and child to his father, who contacted the police. Cobb, now in custody, waived his rights under Miranda and confessed to the murders. Cobb was then indicted, convicted, and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Cobb argued that his confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which he claimed attached when counsel was appointed in the burglary case. In reversing, the court held that once the right to counsel attaches to the offense charged, it also attaches to any other offense that is very closely factually related to the offense charged.

Question: 

Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to offenses that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged. Since the right to counsel was offense specific, and the offenses were separate, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not bar police from interrogating [Cobb] regarding the murders, and [Cobb's] confession was therefore admissible." Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Texas, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 6: Other Sixth Amendment Provisions

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist