police may question a suspect who previously declined to talk without a lawyer...

police may question a suspect who previously declined to talk without a lawyer if investigators learn through a third party that the suspect is willing, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a split decision. The full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned  8-7 a decision by a three-judge panel that, on april 16, 2006, had thrown out the conviction of  Robert Van Hook, who was convicted of the 1985 murder of a man he met in a gay bar.
Van Hook never denied strangling and repeatedly stabbing David Self, but claimed temporary insanity brought on by Self’s sexual advances. He was convicted by a 3-judge panel in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, and the conviction was upheld by a federal district court.
The appeal focused on whether a 3rd party other than a lawyer – in this case Van Hook’s mother – may act as a go-between for police and a suspect.
Records showed that, after Van Hook was arrested, police read him his rights and stopped questioning him when he implied that he should have an attorney present.
Van Hook then talked to his mother, who led police to believe that her son was willing to cooperate. Van Hook was read his rights again, the court noted, and then "gave a full and graphic confession." "The Constitution protects a suspect from official coercion – it does not protect a suspect from himself or his mother," Judge David McKeague wrote in the majority opinion.