This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether petitioner Montejo should be denied Sixth Amendment protections under Michigan v. Jackson because he silently acquiesced to the appointment of counsel rather than affirmatively accepting it.
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that an affirmative acceptance was required to trigger Jackson, and therefore upheld a confession obtained after counsel was appointed.
The parties debated whether the mere appointment of counsel satisfies the request requirement under Jackson, with arguments from Ms. Landry and others that the appointment alone should be sufficient.
Justice Alito asked whether Michigan v. Jackson is immune from reexamination at this point.
Justices noted that if Montejo had explicitly accepted counsel at a hearing, that would satisfy Jackson and change the case outcome.
- [1] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 3
- [2] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 3
- [3] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 3
- [4] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 39
- [5] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, pp. 30–31
- [6] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 20
- [7] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 41
Background and question before the Court
According to Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., according to Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., according to Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the question in this case is whether petitioner Montejo should be denied the Sixth Amendment protections of Michigan v. Jackson because he silently acquiesced in the appointment of counsel at his initial hearing, rather than affirmatively accepting the appointment.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Montejo)
According to Mr. VERRILLI, petitioner contends that Jackson should not be reexamined in this case because the respondent has not asked for it and a special justification is required to overrule it.
According to Ms. Landry, petitioner asserts that the mere appointment of counsel constitutes the request necessary under Jackson to invoke the rule.
Respondent (Louisiana)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument was held on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.
Justice Alito asked whether Michigan v. Jackson is immune from being reexamined at this point.
Justice Scalia questioned the rationale of Jackson, asking if a confession is deemed coerced simply because the defendant expressed a desire for counsel.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner had an opportunity to make a request at the so‑called 72‑hour hearing.
Justice Souter asked whether a request from the defendant is required to trigger Jackson, or if the rule can apply without an explicit request.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that if the petitioner had made a request at the 72‑hour hearing, the outcome of the case would have been different.
- [1] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 1
- [2] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 20
- [3] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 4
- [4] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 27
- [5] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 38
- [6] e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdf, p. 40
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e42b12348818e87cc5fa-r1-ab7435d6fc68ceb8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.