Skip to content
Name: People v. Bichara
Case #: B270653
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/30/2017

Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve issue concerning police eliciting a confession from a defendant who had invoked his right to remain silent. Police interrogated Bichara regarding a murder. During the interrogation Birchara told police that he refused to talk to them anymore and wanted to go back to bed. Despite his invocation, the interrogation continued and police ultimately obtained a confession as to the murder. The trial court denied Bichara's suppression motion and, when the prosecutor moved to introduce the confession into evidence, defense counsel said that he was withdrawing whatever objections he had previously made.…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Loucious
Case #: 16-10121
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/07/2017

Although police did not inform suspect that he had the right to consult with an attorney before questioning, the district court erred by suppressing subsequent admissions pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Before interrogating Loucious for a firearms offense, officers informed him that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, that he had the right to an attorney during questioning, and that if he could not afford an attorney one would be appointed before questioning. Thereafter, Loucious made an admission. Before trial, he moved to suppress his statements,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Falaniko
Case #: B259918
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/29/2016

Attempted murder instruction that listed several intended victims and included a "kill zone" theory was defective because use of the words "and/or" between the names of each victim did not require a finding of specific intent to kill as to each victim. Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including seven counts of attempted murder, arising out of three separate shooting incidents. On appeal he challenged the attempted murder instruction because the use of the disjunctive "or" in the instruction permitted the jury to convict without finding specific intent as to each victim. Held: Reversed and remanded as to four of…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Rosales-Aguilar
Case #: 14-50315
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 04/12/2016

Trial court did not err by allowing prosecution to impeach expert witness with defendant's voluntary but un-Mirandized statements to law enforcement. Rosales was charged with illegal reentry into the U.S. His defense was that he lacked the specific intent to be convicted of illegal reentry because his entered the U.S. accidentally while high on heroin and meth. He did not testify, but a psychiatrist, who he had retained as an expert, did. The psychiatrist relayed Rosales's drug explanation during trial. The government, in turn, impeached the expert with un-Mirandized statements Rosales made to border patrol officers wherein he admitted that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Perez
Case #: D068690
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/08/2016

Confession was involuntary where officer told suspect "we are not gonna charge you with anything" if the he told the truth and suspect immediately confessed. Perez was a suspect in a robbery turned murder. When interrogated, Perez denied any knowledge of the murder until the detective told him that if he were to "tell the truth and be honest" then "we are not gonna charge you with anything." Immediately after the detective made these statements, Perez stated that he did have some information and admitted to being the getaway driver. He was charged with first degree special circumstance murder. Before…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leon
Case #: F065532
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/13/2016

Defendant's un-Mirandized statement during jail classification interview that he was a gang member should have been suppressed under People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523. Leon, Centeno, Palofox, and Rivas, were charged with a number of offenses arising from a series of home invasion robberies that they allegedly committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Other alleged coconspirators were tried separately. To prove the gang allegations, the prosecution relied on statements that Centeno and his coconspirators gave during jail classification interviews admitting they were gang members. Centeno's counsel unsuccessfully objected to the admissibility of his jail classification interview…

View Full Summary
Name: Mays v. Clark
Case #: 12-17189
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/08/2015

Murder suspect who asked detectives to call his step-dad to arrange for his lawyer to be present during custodial interrogation unambiguously invoked right to counsel. Police suspected Mays murdered Scott. During Mays's custodial interrogation, Mays said, "My – my step-dad got a lawyer for me . . . . I'm going to – can – can you call him and have my lawyer come down here?" The detectives did not call Mays's step-dad and continued to interrogate him. They ultimately administered a fake polygraph test. When confronted with the fake results, Mays made incriminating statements. At his trial for first…

View Full Summary
Name: Garcia v. Long
Case #: 13-57071
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/21/2015

Defendant who answered "no" after receiving Miranda warnings and after being asked if he wanted to talk to a detective unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and was entitled to federal habeas relief. After Garcia's step-granddaughter reported that Garcia had molesting her for years, detectives questioned him. A detective read Garcia his Miranda rights and asked, "Okay, now having [your Miranda rights] in mind, do you wish to talk to me?" Garcia's complete answer was "no." However, the detectives continued to ask Garcia "clarifying" questions and they ultimately elicited a lengthy confession and apology letter. At Garcia's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Villasenor
Case #: C071432
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/12/2015

Defendant who told interrogating officer to take him home 13 times in a 14-minute span invoked his right to remain silent. Police suspected Villasenor was responsible for two separate gang-related shootings. Police took him into custody and advised him of his Miranda rights. After hours of interrogation, Villasenor requested 13 times in the span of 14 minutes to be taken home and also asked to call his parents to pick him up and take him home. The detective did not cease questioning Villasenor, who later admitted to being in the proximity of both shootings, but denied involvement. Prior to trial,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bridgeford
Case #: F068226
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/27/2015

Trial court should have granted defendant's motion to suppress his confession because police did not wait 14 days to reinterrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel. Police detained and questioned Bridgeford because they suspected he was involved in a murder. While in custody, Bridgeford invoked his right to counsel. Questioning ceased and he was released. A few hours later, police arrested Bridgeford and began to question him again. Bridgeford confessed. At trial, he moved to suppress his confession. The trial court denied that motion, relying upon People v. Storm (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1007. The jury convicted him of…

View Full Summary