Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

then ''told him what I had through investigation lmed, I' and the defendant
-
corrected the officer, Jmes, sqra, at 639640, The explanatory staterrents
mde by the defendant were suppressed because it was obvious that the police
officer was subtly trying to obtain incriminating statments.
The state cannot justify the use of the sarne tactic mdm& in Jones
simply because it occurred prior to giving Mirarlda warnings rather than afterwan
The tactic is mre likely to elicit a response when used as Detective Bradley
did here, Without benefit of Miranda at all.
To permit the use of such tactics
to obtain statmnts from arrested suspects muld ''place a p rdm on the
ingenuity of the police to devise mthds of indirect interrogation, rather than
to i.qlemen-t: the plain mdate of Ivliranda".
3, quoting from comnoriwealth v. Hamilton, 445 Pa. 292, 297, 285 A. 2d 172,
175,
Innis, supra, at 1689, footnote
--r*-
This practice cannot be condoned, The defendant's statants to Bradley
should be been suppressed. kvasal is mandated.
THE TRI74L COURT EXRED IN PEXFUIITTING THE STATE
TD USE 7HE D ' S S T F i m M E AT HIS
AFBEST FOR AN UNREXATED OF"SE AS JWLDENCE OF
GUILT, AND IN SO INSTRUCTING THE JUHY, IN VIOLATION
OF 'IHE DEFENXNT'S DUE PEEOCESS RIW To A FAIR
T R Y Y ; A S G U A R A N T E E D B Y T H E ~ ~ ~ T O
THF, U.S . M>NsTImIoN ?WD AETICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE
JXORIDA CQNSTITUTION.
me state introduced, through the testhny of Etective Bradley,
allegedly false exculpatory statmats that were mde when the defendant was
arrested by Bradley for an aggravated assault against Lewis Bradley. IT. 197-
198, 200-201, 1650). The statants were made in response to Bradley explaining
to the defmdant the circmnsbnces of the aggravated assault incident as he knew
it. (T, 209-210), The trial court granted, over objection, the State's
&quested Jury Znstruct2on No, 7 (R, 323, T, 2098-2102, 2122-2123)" 'Ihe
prosecu~r argued the statmmts as evidence of guilt. (T, 6165-2166, 21771
Page -66-