October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1702
Can police question a suspect about uncharged crimes after they invoke their right to a lawyer?
Texas argues police may question suspects about uncharged crimes. Cobb argues this violates his right to counsel.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Gregory Coleman argued Cobb was informed of his rights. He said Cobb voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
Michael Greenwood asked the Court to follow prior precedents. He argued against expanding constitutional protections.
Lori Blatt argued police need to investigate uncharged crimes. She said voluntary confessions serve the public interest.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 1-5
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of the right to counsel. It asks if police can question a suspect about new crimes after the suspect asks for a lawyer.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Texas wants the Court to allow police to question suspects about uncharged crimes. They argue this helps solve new crimes.
Cobb wants the Court to ban police questioning about uncharged crimes. He argues this protects his right to counsel.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What each side says
Texas argues police have a strong interest in investigating new crimes. They say suspects can voluntarily discuss uncharged offenses.
Cobb argues prior rulings limit police questioning. He says the right to counsel covers all crimes, not just the charged one.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case is submitted. He thanked the advocate and closed the argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 1-5
Why it matters
This case defines police power to question suspects. It balances public safety against individual rights. The outcome shapes future criminal investigations nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 1-5
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.