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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 interview.” The Florida Supreme Court correctly concluded that “[t]his last sentence could not effectively convey a right the defendant was never told he had. In other words, how can a defendant exercise at any time during an interrogation a right he did not know existed?” JA 172. Put simply, “a right that has never been expressed cannot be reiterated.” Id. Finally, affirming the decision below will not “unduly burden” law enforcement. Br. 12; accord id. 22, 27. Given the settled lower court jurisprudence and law enforcement practice, affirming the decision below will do little more than confirm the status quo. Reversing, by contrast, could impose substantial burdens on the criminal justice system. Under Petitioner’s approach, law enforcement agencies would, in the “often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948), have incentives to modify their forms. That, in turn, would reignite litigation in this area and dilute the protections intended by the Miranda decision. Petitioner would risk all of this to defend a standardized form that the Tampa Police Department no longer uses, Br. 21 n.5, that Petitioner concedes is “arguably incomplete,” Br. 25, and that the Solicitor General views as contrary to “sound law enforcement practice.” SG Br. 9. This Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted or, alternatively, affirm the decision below. --------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
15 ARGUMENT I. THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW RESTS ON INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS A. The Florida Supreme Court Based its Decision on the Florida Constitution as Interpreted in Traylor “This Court will not review a decision of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). In Michigan v. Long, the Court explained that this jurisdictional bar applies where “the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is . . . clear from the face of the opinion” or where the court below relies on federal law but “make[s] clear by a plain statement . . . that the federal cases are being used only for the purpose of guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached.” 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983). A straightforward read of the decision below confirms that this standard is satisfied here. First, the decision below was, by its own terms, independently based on state grounds. This Court need go no further than the plain language of the decision to confirm this. The decision below unequivocally and repeatedly stated that it was based on Miranda and,
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 and 20: 9 The Florida Supreme Court conclud
Page 21 and 22: 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. This Cour
Page 23: 13 In line with this longstanding j
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?