Offensively Specific Part I

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." -Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In December, 1993 Lindsey Owings came home to find that he had been burglarized, and that his wife, Margaret and 16-month daughter, Kori were missing.

He called the Walker County Sheriff's Department and reported this.

Raymond Cobb lived across the street from the Owings, and an anonymous tip led the investigation to his doorstep.

Although Mr. Cobb initially denied any involvement, while under arrest for some unrelated offense, he confessed to the Owing burglary.

He was subsequently indicted and counsel was appointed to represent him.

In the meantime, the sheriff's department was still looking for answers as to the whereabouts of Mrs. Owings and Kori.

Investigators spoke with Mr. Cobb twice - with his attorney's consent - about the missing wife and daughter.

Twice, they got denials.

Mr. Cobb was entitled to bail on the burglary and so he posted a bond, then went to stay with his father in Odessa, Texas.

During that time, he confessed to his father that he had killed Mrs. Owings and Kori.

Dad reported that info to the proper officials and Mr. Cobb was taken into custody.

Once there, he confessed. Finally.

Was he properly Mirandized before confessing? We don't really know. At least, I don't.

Was it important that he was already represented by counsel in the companion case (the burglary)?

That depends on your point of view.

Cobb was convicted (at some point he led the investigators to the bodies).

He was sentenced to death (uh-huh).

There is one automatic appeal in a death case in Texas - to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

That court reversed the sentence, stating that "once the right to counsel attaches to the offense charged, it also attaches to any other offense that is very closely related factually to the offense charged."

Well, the USSC didn't see it that way.

Five members felt 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."

That sentiment, which was actually a legal holding (because five beats four) actually turned on the meaning of "offense."

Although there was precedent for the Court of Criminal Appeals holding, the Supremes felt that the Cobb facts were distinguishable (they always are).

Ok, so the majority focused on "specific offenses" versus, oh, any other kind.

What they came up with was a test to differentiate two different offenses from one offense.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic