Skip to content
Name: People v. Martin
Case #: E028833
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/14/2002
Subsequent History: None

Defendant’s constitutional rights under Massiah v.United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 were not violated when the police arranged for his girlfriend to secretly record inculpatory telephone conversations while he was represented by counsel. In addition to a murder, the police were investigating defendant’s later intimidation of the girlfriend as a witness. Here the police provided the recording equipment. The girlfriend voluntarily contacted the police (although she was in fear for hers and her daughter’s lives), the police did not give her any instructions or suggested questions. The appellate court found no waiver of Sixth Amendment rights…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. John Doe
Case #: 99-50250
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 07/20/2000
Subsequent History: None

Juvenile appellant "John Doe" was arrested for transportation of marijuana. He was not advised of his rights for over three hours; his parents were not advised of his rights; and he was not brought before a magistrate for a day and a half. The failure to comply with the parental notification provision of 18 U.S.C. section 5033 resulted in prejudice because the minor lost the opportunity for parental advice about his rights prior to an interrogation which resulted in a confession. However, the statutory violations did not rise to the level of constitutional deprivation. The minor's…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Bushyhead
Case #: 00-10396
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/30/2001
Subsequent History: None

In a homicide case, as a police officer approached defendant after his arrest with the intent of giving him Miranda warnings, the defendant said, "I have nothing to say. I’m going to get the death penalty anyway." The court held it was error to admit this testimony for the limited purpose of tending to show defendant was aware of having commited a homicide. The court characterized the statement as an invocation of silence itself. The privilege against self-incrimination prevents not only the use of evidence of defendant’s silence, but also the circumstances of that silence as…

View Full Summary
Name: Ford v. Superior Court
Case #: A094667
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/31/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. and rehg. den. on 8/28/01. Rev. denied 11/14/01.

Suppression of appellant's confession to murder was not required where appellant was not "seized" before he made the incriminating statements. Appellant called police and reported that someone had broken into his house and there was "blood all over." Officers asked if he would mind sitting in the patrol car while they investigated, which he willingly did. They then asked him to come to the police station with them to talk, which he also willingly did. Appellant was neither handcuffed nor under arrest. He was read his Miranda rights, and signed a waiver of them. Officers testified that they were suspicious…

View Full Summary
Name: Garvin v. Farmon
Case #: 00-15295
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/02/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was interrogated by two police officers for 45 minutes after she made repeated requests for counsel. Police officers told her that she could avoid a capital murder charge if she confessed, that nothing she told them would be used against her, and that officers had evidence against her they actually did not have. Appellant did not confess to the murder, and the interview ended after appellant told the detectives that she had not slept in three days and would call them after she got some sleep. Three days later, appellant was arraigned. She told officers she wished to speak…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Corona
Case #: D033855
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/06/2001
Subsequent History: None

The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (which requires notification of the consul of the arrest of a foreign national). Here the defendant waived her Miranda rights at 10 a.m. with Officer #1. When Officer #2 questioned her at 1:00 p.m., he did not re-advise her of her Miranda rights. The second interrogation was reasonably contemporaneous with the first so as not to require a…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Velarde-Gomez
Case #: 99-50602
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/23/2001
Subsequent History: None

During Velarde’s trial for importation of marijuana, the government elicited testimony concerning about Velarde’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda non-responses to questions during an interview with border patrol agents. The district court found the evidence admissable as "demeanor" evidence, and also because a subsequent waiver of Miranda rights encompassed the silence preceding the Miranda warnings. Here, the appellate court reversed. There was no meaningful distinction between the "demeanor evidence" and silence, which has been held to be inadmissable. Velarde did not react at all when confronted with the information concerning the marijuana found in his vehicle; according to officers,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lujan
Case #: B140027
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/23/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 1/29/02.

In a trial for first degree murder and stalking, the trial court erred when it admitted appellant’s confession, which was given after inadequate Miranda warnings. The warnings failed to advise appellant of his right to have counsel present before and during questioning. However, appellant testified at trial, and the contents of his testimony were virtually the same as those of his confession, so the error was entirely harmless. Even if appellant’s decision to testify was in response to the trial court’s erroneous ruling, Miranda would not permit reversal. The derivative evidence rules which apply in the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Slayton
Case #: S086153
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 10/18/2001
Subsequent History: None

Slayton was interrogated by police officers concerning an uncharged burglary after his right to counsel attached on a vehicle theft charge. The Court of Appeal held that appellant Slayton’s statements regarding his involvement in the burglary were properly suppressed because the burglary was inextricably intertwined with the vehicle theft. (The crimes involved the same victim and location, and appellant obtained the keys to the vehicle during the burglary.) After the California Supreme Court granted review, the United States Supreme Court held in Texas v. Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, that the Sixth Amendment right to…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Galindo-Gallegos
Case #: 99-50585
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/27/2001
Subsequent History: None

Galindo-Gallegos and several others were caught while running from border patrol agents who were looking for illegal aliens. The agents did not advise him of his Miranda rights prior to asking him his legal status and Galindo-Gallegos admitted that he was an illegal alien. At trial, he moved to suppress his admission and the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court here found that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper because Galindo-Gallegos was not in custody when questioned. When officers apprehend a substantial number of suspects and question them in the open…

View Full Summary