Page 46 - TPA Journal May June 2025

inquiring into a new topic. In light of this evi- them, but the bottom line is what I’ll tell you and
dence, the district court did not clearly err when it other than that I need to talk to a lawyer on the
concluded that Sanders’s invocations of counsel other answers and stuff, I need questions
during his first interrogation were limited to cer- answered. Okay?” Walsh replied: “Okay . . .
tain topics. Accordingly, all the statements that’s[] fair . . . I don’t want to make you do some-
Sanders made during his first interview were thing that you don’t want to do.” Sanders then
admissible. Also, because Sanders did not make asked if either state had the death penalty, and
any requests for counsel during the second inter- Walsh replied that he did not know the answer.
view at the FBI office, his statements made during Sanders reiterated that he needed to talk to a
that interview were admissible as well. lawyer, and Walsh terminated the interview.
We now turn to the third interrogation, which was
the recorded interview conducted by Agent Walsh In the report and recommendation, the magistrate
and Trooper Moore at a correctional facility. The judge found Sanders’s first invocation of counsel
first forty-eight minutes were spent obtaining during the third interview was only with respect to
information from Sanders regarding where the question whether he had worked for a mattress
Suellen’s body was located. After that, Walsh and company. Unlike the first interview, however,
Moore began asking Sanders about his relation- Sanders did not limit his invocation to a particular
ship with Suellen. The interview transcript question. In the first interview, Sanders stated that
demonstrates that Sanders was cooperating and “he wanted to speak to an attorney before answer-
answering those questions. Walsh then asked ing that question.” Here, after Sanders stated that
Sanders if he had worked for a mattress company. he wanted to talk to an attorney, Walsh asked:
In response, Sanders stated, “Um, I want to talk to “About what?” Sanders responded: “Before I
a lawyer. Stop cussing me, but I want to talk to a answer that question or anything to do with other
lawyer.” Walsh then asked: “About what?” people.” Walsh then asked Sanders if he would
Sanders responded: “Before I answer that question “still continue answering questions.” Sanders
or anything to do with other people.” Walsh clarified that he would only answer questions
replied that they would stop asking those ques- regarding Suellen and L.R.
tions. Walsh then immediately asked Sanders if Sanders’s invocation of his right to counsel was
he would “still continue answering questions.” arguably unambiguous. “[A] reasonable police
Sanders responded that he would “answer ques- officer” would have understood Sanders’s state-
tions as long as you’re not talking about other peo- ment “to be a request for an attorney.” Walsh then
p l e . ” asked “[a]bout what,” and Sanders limited his
Walsh then asked if it was okay to ask questions invocation to certain topics. However, “an
about Suellen and L.R. Sanders agreed, stating: accused’s post request responses to further inter-
“That’s them, you stay in that area, that’s fine.” rogation may not be used to cast retrospective
The interview continued with Sanders responding doubt on the clarity of the initial request itself.”
to questions about the trip to Arizona and the mur- After Walsh asked Sanders “[a]bout what,”
der of Suellen. Sanders denied having an argu- Sanders’s response clarified that he was limiting
ment or altercation prior to shooting Suellen. his invocation of the right to counsel.
After Sanders confessed to shooting Suellen, Nonetheless, we cannot know whether Sanders
Walsh asked him what happened next. Sanders would have limited his invocation without the
replied: “I made [L.R.] get in the car and we left. prompting question from Walsh. Because we are
Pulled her over up beside her in the car and we got confident that any error was harmless beyond a
into the car and we left. I need to talk to a lawyer, reasonable doubt, we will assume without decid-
that’s as far as I’m . . . we just um, we just left and ing for the purpose of this appeal that the district
we drove. I didn’t know what to do.” Sanders court erred in finding the invocation limited.
continued: “Um, I shot both of ‘em, killed both of Sanders does not expressly argue that the admis-

42 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal