Skip to content
Name: People v. Gonzalez
Case #: D059083
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/29/2012

A parole agent's promise of leniency to the parolee, which causes the parolee to confess, results in an involuntary and inadmissible confession. Appellant, charged with attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, simple mayhem, and other offenses and enhancements, brought a motion in the trial court seeking to exclude his confession on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of Miranda and his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The motion was denied and following his conviction, he raised the issue on appeal. According to the evidence, the victim was attacked with a hammer and sustained serious injuries. Following appellant's arrest,…

View Full Summary
Name: Montejo v. Louisiana
Case #: 07-1529
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/26/2009
Subsequent History: 129 S.Ct. 2079; 173 L.Ed.2d 955

Michigan v. Jackson (1986) 475 U.S. 625, is overruled in cases where there was a subsequent waiver of counsel after the initial appointment. At a preliminary hearing, Montejo was charged with first-degree murder and the court appointed counsel. Later that same day, he was read his Miranda rights, and agreed to go on an excursion with police to locate the murder weapon. During the excursion, he wrote a letter of apology to the victim's widow. Upon his return, he met his court-appointed counsel for the first time. At his trial, the letter was admitted over his objection, and he was…

View Full Summary
Name: Doody v. Schiro
Case #: 06-17161
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/20/2008

The minor’s confession was involuntary despite Miranda warnings being given where police interrogated him over night for twelve straight hours. Police interrogated petitioner, a 17-year old Thai American, about the murders of some Buddhist monks in their monastery. Although police gave Miranda warnings, they questioned petitioner for twelve hours, with 45 minutes of hard questioning, demands that he answer, and which left him sobbing, but resulted in incriminating statements. After the conviction was affirmed in state court, petitioner filed a federal habeas writ alleging the confession should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings were inadequate, and his statement was…

View Full Summary
Name: Beaty v. Schriro
Case #: 05-99013
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/28/2007

Statements were properly admitted where they were voluntary under all the attendant circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial, on remand for an evidentiary hearing, of a habeas corpus petition in a capital case. The court held that the petitioner's inculpatory statements to a prison psychologist were voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and therefore properly admitted at his trial because the petitioner did not reasonably believe that his statements were protected by a confidentiality agreement, and any promise that might have existed was not sufficiently compelling or coercive to have overborne the petitioner's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chun
Case #: C049069
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/14/2007
Subsequent History: 12/19/07 Rev. granted: S157601

Jury instruction on second degree murder was improper where collateral purpose was based on appellant's statements which were improperly admitted. Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and street terrorism, following a drive-by shooting. On appeal, appellant challenged the use of his admissions to police that he was in the car and that he fired a gun. He contended that the statements were coerced because they were elicited by implied threats and promises of leniency. The appellate court agreed regarding the statement about firing the gun. Just before the admission, police repeatedly emphasized appellant's young…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Perdomo
Case #: B186098
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 02/13/2007

Appellant was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated following a jury trial in which his statements to police were admitted. The statements were the result of an interrogation in the hospital while appellant was recovering from surgery and heavily sedated with pain medications. On appeal, he contended that the statements were involuntary and therefore admitted in error. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. The record was devoid of any suggestion that the officers resorted to physical or psychological pressure to elicit the statements. Absent some indication of coercive police activity an admission or confession…

View Full Summary
Name: Anderson v. Terhune
Case #: 04-17237
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/08/2006

Where a defendant's attempted invocation of his right to remain silent was ambiguous, the officer's subsequent questioning seeking clarification did not violate Miranda rights. During a police interrogation, Anderson stated "I don't even wanna talk about this no more," "Uh! I'm though with this," and "I plead the Fifth." The state court concluded that while Anderson articulated words that could, in isolation, be viewed as an invocation of his right to remain silent, given the totality of the circumstances, Anderson did not intend to terminate the interview. The appellate court here held that the state court's factual and legal conclusion…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Terrell
Case #: A110124
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2006

Following his arrest for murder, 18-year-old Terrell made incriminating statements during a police interview. Police continued to question Terrell after he invoked his right to remain silent. At the conclusion of the interview, he asked to call his mother. He told his mother that he had killed someone accidentally during a robbery. The trial court suppressed the statements to police as coerced, but admitted the phone call because it was not coerced. The appellate court affirmed. Terrell's telephonic statements were admissible even if his confession under police interrogation was not. Terrell initiated the…

View Full Summary
Name: Juan H. v. Allen
Case #: 04-15562
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 06/02/2005

A minor committed to the California Youth Authority for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder was entitled to federal habeas relief where the record contained insufficient evidence to show that he harbored the intent necessary for conviction under a theory of aiding and abetting. The Ninth Circuit held that the California Court of Appeal's affirmance constituted an unreasonable application of the Fourteenth Amendment requirement that the prosecution present evidence sufficient to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the record contained insufficient evidence to show that the minor knew his brother intended…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jenkins
Case #: A099675
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/30/2004
Subsequent History: 12/22/04: rev. den.

While the court erred in failing to suppress statements made during an unlawful detention, the admission of those statements was not prejudicial. The defendant, a suspect in a murder and an attempted murder, was arrested without a warrant for driving without a license, and was detained for over sixteen hours while officers questioned him. He was not brought before a magistrate and the officers were not engaged in necessary administrative functions related to the traffic offense; instead, the officers detained defendant in order to question him regarding the homicide investigation. The Court of Appeal concluded that while…

View Full Summary