 |
Legal
Questions Answered:
|
Question Title: "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" - A Miranda Example
E-Newsletter
Edition: September 19, 2007
Response Provided
By:
Brian S. Batterton - Legal & Liability Risk
Management Institute
Always note that state law may be
more restrictive on police power than the U.S. Constitution.
A suspect has been informed of Miranda and requests not to talk to
investigators but does not request an attorney. Questions is…Can
the same investigator walk back into the interview room and talk
to the suspect minimizing the case? And after that conversation
the suspect has changed his / her mind and now wants to answer
questions….Is this proper? And will the confession or information
provided hold up in court and not be tossed out because of the “fruits
of the poisonous tree?”
_____
The United States Supreme Court addressed this
very issue in Michigan v. Mosley i. The facts of Mosley, quoted directly from
the case are as follows:
The respondent, Richard Bert Mosley, was arrested
in Detroit, Mich., in the early afternoon of April 8, 1971, in connection with
robberies that had recently
occurred at the Blue Goose Bar and the White Tower Restaurant on that city's
lower east side. The arresting officer, Detective James Cowie of the Armed
Robbery Section of the Detroit Police Department, was acting on a tip implicating
Mosley and three other men in the robberies. 1 After effecting the arrest,
Detective Cowie brought Mosley to the Robbery, Breaking and Entering Bureau
of the Police Department, located on the fourth floor of the departmental
headquarters
building. The officer advised Mosley of his rights under this Court's decision
in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, and had him read and sign the department's
constitutional rights notification certificate. After filling out the necessary
arrest papers, Cowie began questioning Mosley about the robbery of the White
Tower Restaurant. When Mosley said he did not want to answer
any questions about the robberies, Cowie promptly ceased the interrogation. The completion
of the arrest papers and the questioning of Mosley together took approximately
20 minutes. At no time during the questioning did Mosley indicate
a desire to consult with a lawyer, and there is no claim that the procedures followed
to this point did not fully comply with the strictures of the Miranda opinion.
Mosley was then taken to a ninth-floor cell block.
Shortly after 6 p.m., Detective
Hill of the Detroit Police Department Homicide Bureau brought Mosley
from the cell block to the fifth-floor office of the
Homicide Bureau for questioning about the fatal shooting of a man named
Leroy Williams. Williams had been killed on January 9, 1971, during a holdup
attempt
outside the 101 Ranch Bar in Detroit. Mosley had not been arrested on
this charge or interrogated about it by Detective Cowie. 2 Before
questioning Mosley about this homicide, Detective Hill carefully advised
him of his "Miranda rights." Mosley read the notification form both silently and aloud, and
Detective Hill then read and explained the warnings to him and had him sign
the form. Mosley at first denied any involvement in the Williams murder, but
after the officer told him that Anthony Smith had confessed to participating
in the slaying and had named him as the "shooter," Mosley made
a statement implicating himself in the homicide. 3 The interrogation
by Detective Hill lasted approximately 15 minutes, and at no time during
its course did
Mosley ask to consult with a lawyer or indicate that he did not want
to discuss the homicide. In short, there is no claim that the procedures
followed during
Detective Hill's interrogation of Mosley, standing alone, did not fully
comply with the strictures of the Miranda opinion [emphasis added]. ii
Mosley’s
confession was later admitted in the homicide trial and he was convicted.
A Michigan appeals court later reversed his conviction because
he was questioned after he invoked his right to silence. The United States
Supreme Court heard the case and the issue was as follows:
Did the conduct
of the Detroit police (re-questioning Mosley more than 2 hours after
he invoked his right to silence) that led to Mosley's incriminating statement
violate the Miranda "guidelines," so as to render the statement
inadmissible in evidence against Mosley at his trial. iii
The Supreme Court held
that this “re-questioning” did not violate
Mosley’s rights under Miranda and therefore the confession was validly
obtained and admissible in court.
Significant factors that the court considered
were as follows: (1) Mosley was originally properly advised of his Miranda rights; (2) when Mosley said
he did not want to talk about the robberies, the detective immediately ceased
questioning and did not try to persuade Mosley otherwise; (3) the second
interview occurred after a significant amount of time had passed (more than
2 hours)
and at a new location; (4) the second detective also properly advised Mosley
of his Miranda rights; and (5) the detective, during the second interview,
did not question Mosley about the robberies (he was questioned about a different
crime). iv
In conclusion, when a suspect invokes his right
to silence, there is not a per se rule against all further questioning, as
when a suspect invokes
his
right to counsel. Under federal constitutional law, cases indicate that a
second interview may be allowed when:
-
The suspect’s right to remain
silent was clearly honored in the first interview;
-
A significant amount of time passed between the first
and second interview;
-
The suspect was given new Miranda warnings before the
second interview and clearly waived those rights; and
-
No pressure tactics or illegal tactics were used to compel
the suspect to speak to the officers.
However, it is important to note that there is
a different rule when a suspect invokes his right to counsel. In Edwards
v. Arizona, the
police arrested Edwards
for murder and properly advised him of his Miranda rights. v Edwards waived
his rights and spoke to the police. He said that he wanted to make a “deal.” The
detective told Edwards that he wanted a statement but could not promise him
a “deal.” Edwards then said “I want an attorney before making
a deal.” The next day two different detectives went to the jail and asked
to see Edwards. A detention officer told Edwards that some detectives wanted
to talk to him and he said that he did not want to talk to anyone to which
the detention officer replied that he “had to” talk to the detectives.
Edwards was advised of his Miranda warnings and he said he would talk. The
detectives let him listen to the taped statement of his accomplice and Edwards
subsequently confessed.
The United States Supreme Court held that:
...when
an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial
interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing
only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation
even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused,
such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only
through
counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until
counsel has been made available to him... vi
Thus, a police officer may not reinitiate
an interrogation of a suspect after the suspect has invoked his right to
counsel. This is so even if the suspect
has had an opportunity to speak to counsel. The only exception occurs if
the suspect who had previously invoked his right to counsel himself initiates
further
contact with the police. vii Of course, fresh Miranda warnings should be given
in a situation where the suspect initiates additional conversation.
Citations:
-
423 U.S. 96 (1975)
-
Id. at 97-98
-
Id. at 100
-
Id. at 104-105
-
451 U.S. 477 (1981)
-
Id. at 484, 485
-
Id. at 485
|
