State v. McLain, 2025 ME 87 (Me. 2025)

The Supreme Court of Maine vacated a conviction, finding that custodial statements should have been suppressed because there was no waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, and offered the following language in support.

“McLain did not clearly waive his privilege against self-incrimination and instead answered that it “depend[ed] on the questions” when asked if he was willing to continue answering questions. At this point, Agent Gauvin initially attempted to clarify, stating, “Well, I mean, it’s . . . . Yes or no? I know ‘it depends’ but, I—I—I understand that, but, that’s what I, you know, that’s why I read you your rights.” McLain then asked if there was a lawyer present and never gave a “yes or no” answer. McLain never affirmatively expressed that he wanted to waive his privilege against self-incrimination. His conduct did not indicate that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his privilege against self-incrimination. To the contrary, McLain’s question “Is there a lawyer here?” demonstrates an attempt to invoke his right to counsel as part of his privilege against self-incrimination and eliminates any doubt as to whether his earlier statement of “it depends” was a waiver of the privilege. It was not. At that point, the officers should have stopped and clarified how McLain wished to proceed. Under article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution, interrogation must cease until the officers obtain a clear and unambiguous waiver of the right to remain silent, which they failed to do here.”