Brief of respondent for Florida v. Powell, 08-1175 - Oyez

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 the warning. JA 171-72. The court stated that this sentence did “not effectively convey to Powell his right to the presence of counsel before and during police questioning,” because it “could not effectively convey a right the defendant was never told he had.” JA 171. Finally, the court rejected Petitioner’s argument that a failure sufficiently to warn suspects of their rights could be cured where the suspect purportedly had “actual knowledge” of those rights. JA 172-73. The court concluded that delving into the subjective knowledge of defendants would be unduly speculative and defy the bright-line virtues of Miranda. JA 172- 73. Justice Wells dissented. JA 177-80. In his view, informing a suspect of the right to an attorney “before answering any of our questions” “reasonably conveyed” that the suspect could invoke his right to an attorney during the interrogation. JA 179. Justice Wells asserted that the statement in the warning allowing the defendant to use “any of these rights at any time” further “conveyed to Powell his continuing right of access to counsel.” JA 179-80. Finally, he concluded that requiring police to use a different warning form would burden law enforcement. JA 180. --------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. This Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted because the decision below clearly and explicitly rests on independent and adequate state law grounds. The Florida Supreme Court held that Powell’s statements to police were inadmissible because the warnings read to him were deficient under “article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution.” JA 174; accord JA 157-58, 164, 170. That holding is independent of the court’s separate analysis finding the warnings invalid under Miranda. JA 174. As required by Michigan v. Long, the independence and adequacy of the state law ground here is “clear from the face of the opinion” and the Florida Supreme Court repeatedly made a “plain statement” that its decision rested on state law grounds. 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983). II. If the Court reaches the merits, it should affirm the decision below. The parties and amicus curiae all agree that suspects possess the right to have an attorney present during police interrogation. Br. 12; SG Br. 7-8. We all agree that Miranda requires police to convey this right to suspects. Br. 10-11; SG Br. 12. And we all agree that in determining whether a warning adequately conveyed this right, a reviewing court should focus on the substance of the warning and not demand the use of specific words. Br. 12, 16- 17; SG Br. 18. Our disagreement concerns whether a warning that advises of a right to talk to a lawyer before questioning suffices to warn the suspect that he has the right to have the lawyer present with him during the interrogation.
Page 1 and 2: No. 08-1175 =======================
Page 3 and 4: ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS
Page 5 and 6: iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES
Page 7 and 8: vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Page 9 and 10: viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continu
Page 11 and 12: 1 INTRODUCTION This case presents a
Page 13 and 14: 3 protections. The Florida Supreme
Page 15 and 16: 5 The warning form did not state th
Page 17 and 18: 7 The jury found Powell guilty of p
Page 19: 9 The Florida Supreme Court conclud
Page 23 and 24: 13 In line with this longstanding j
Page 25 and 26: 15 ARGUMENT I. THE WRIT OF CERTIORA
Page 27 and 28: 17 addressed these separate standar
Page 29 and 30: 19 the Florida Constitution more br
Page 31 and 32: 21 here warrant dismissal. What can
Page 33 and 34: 23 Supreme Court in this case expli
Page 35 and 36: 25 The basis for requiring law enfo
Page 37 and 38: 27 include the right to have counse
Page 39 and 40: 29 Frankson, 83 F.3d 79, 82 (4th Ci
Page 41 and 42: 31 is in the ambiguity of the warni
Page 43 and 44: 33 respecting the denial of the pet
Page 45 and 46: 35 the Fifth Circuit concluded that
Page 47 and 48: 37 For its part, the Solicitor Gene
Page 49 and 50: 39 [T]o advise a suspect that he ha
Page 51 and 52: 41 Fletcher and Mr. Lee signed ‘W
Page 53 and 54: 43 Of the over 900 forms in the stu
Page 55 and 56: 45 the right to counsel “before
Page 57 and 58: 47 Last, Petitioner ultimately retr
Page 59 and 60: 49 Beyond that, Petitioner’s spec
Page 61 and 62: 51 for the United States at *37-38,
Page 63 and 64: 53 decision that Tampa again aligne

Brief of respondent for Florida v. Powell, 08-1175 - Oyez

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?