2842/09 - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

afternoon by Cpl. Mann remained tainted and should be suppressed as well.@ Thus we will focus our analysis on the admissibility of the statements that appellant made during the first interview. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, because appellant=s Aright to cut off questioning@ was not Ascrupulously honored,@ in violation of the Supreme Court=s opinion in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975). According to appellant, Mosley Adistinctly sets the framework by which Miranda can be satisfied in [an] interrogation after the right to remain silent has been invoked.@ Appellant points to the four factors in Mosley that are to be considered in determining whether a defendant=s right to cut off questioning has been scrupulously honored: Athat the police >[1] immediately ceased the interrogation, [2] resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time [more than two hours] and [3] the provision of a fresh set of warnings, and [4] restricted the second interrogation to a crime that had not been a subject of the earlier interrogation.=@ Id. at 106 (alterations by appellant). With respect to the first two factors, appellant contends that there was Anever a break in communication@ between Sgt. Becker, Cpl. Bachtell, and appellant during the first interview, and that the officers did not attempt to cease the interview after appellant invoked his right to remain silent. Additionally, appellant claims that Aat best 9 minutes passed before [appellant] was explicitly asked to waive his right to remain silent.@ Appellant therefore argues that Alittle to no time@ passed before the officers resumed questioning, far shorter than the two hours of time that passed between the two interviews in Mosley. Regarding the third factor, appellant concedes that he did sign a Miranda waiver Aa mere 10 minutes@ after invoking his right to remain silent, and that this fact does not weigh against the State. As to the final factor, appellant points out that the subsequent questioning related to the 17
same homicide and therefore was not related to another crime. Because the totality of the circumstances indicate that his right to cut off questioning was not scrupulously honored, appellant concludes that his statements should not have been admitted at trial. The State responds that an analysis of the factors in Mosley as applied to the instant case is Awholly unnncessary,@ because appellant reinitiated contact with the police and thus waived his previously invoked right to silence. In particular, the State contends that, because appellant initiated further communication with the police, Athere was no need . . . for the police to >break off communications,= >allow [for] the passage of a sufficient amount of time,= [or] >restrict the second interrogation to a crime that had not been a subject of the earlier interrogation.=@ Appellant relies heavily on Mosley, a case in which the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which the police may reinitiate interrogation of a suspect after the suspect invokes his or her right to remain silent. In that case, Mosley was arrested for two robberies and was brought to the police department, where he was advised of his Miranda rights and signed the police department=s constitutional rights notification certificate. 423 U.S. at 97. When police began questioning Mosley regarding one of the robberies, he indicated that he did not want to answer any questions. Id. The police ceased interrogation and took Mosley to his cell. Id. Approximately two hours later, another officer brought Mosley to a different room for questioning about a homicide that was unrelated to the robberies. Id. at 97-98, 104. Prior to this questioning, the officer advised Mosley of his Miranda rights and Mosley once again signed the notification certificate. Id. at 98. This time, however, Mosley chose to speak with the police about the homicide and made a statement implicating himself in the crime. Id. Mosley was subsequently charged in the homicide and sought to suppress the incriminating statement, which 18
Page 1 and 2: REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP
Page 3 and 4: to commit robbery, and possession o
Page 5 and 6: advice of Miranda rights, at 1:25 p
Page 7 and 8: * * * [PROSECUTOR]: [WITNESS]: [PRO
Page 9 and 10: [PROSECUTOR]: [WITNESS]: [PROSECUTO
Page 11 and 12: weapons are actually removed and th
Page 13 and 14: On cross-examination, Sgt. Becker e
Page 15 and 16: On re-direct examination of Sgt. Be
Page 17: If [appellant] reinitiated or conti
Page 21 and 22: comment, Sgt. Becker testified that
Page 23 and 24: form waiving her Miranda rights.@ I
Page 25 and 26: interrogation until counsel is prov
Page 27 and 28: Our analysis is not complete, becau
Page 29 and 30: subject to multiple punishments for
Page 31 and 32: Defense counsel never objected to t
Page 33 and 34: Md. 1, 29 (2004) (citations and quo
Page 35 and 36: ecause other photographs also showe
Page 37 and 38: enlarged to show the gold chain. Th

2842/09 - Maryland Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?