Monday, June 18, 2012

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Lynn 12SA97

Decision here.

   Lynn was in custody for parole violations unrelated to the case at hand, when a Sterling PD detective wanted to interrogate him about a case of kidnapping, assault, and menacing.  While the detective was reading Lynn his Miranda rights, Lynn asked "When can I talk to my lawyer?" in an assertive tone.  The detective answered "You want to talk to a lawyer?  You say that, I'm done?  Do you want to talk to a lawyer now?"

   Lynn answered by asking if he could talk to a lawyer after the interrogation if he did choose to talk.  That led to the following speech from the detective (the court noted that he was hurrying through it):

"Absolutely.  Oh yeah, this isn't over.  I want to hear your side of it now so
I can get going with the case and figure out what I'm going to tell the DA.
OK, 'cause all I have is one side of the story.  I have your one half with all
the witnesses saying this, I want to hear why you did this. . . .
And that's what I want to hear from you.  I want to hear your complete
side of it.  OK?  And that is important.  Alright, no, but you got to sign the
bottom, and I need your right hand, dude.  You need another clipboard or
something?"

anything you want to talk about.  Dude, this is where you got to read this
And like I said, you don't have to tell me anything, you can  just  tell me
part.  Do you wish to still speak to me with these rights in mind, if that's
the case?  Now like I said, you can tell me anytime to pound the sand get
out of here I don't want to talk about it.  OK?  So what's your side of it?
So I can hear that side of it, so I can present that with the case, man.
'Cause I really am, I'm looking at these two sides of it, I don't want to
present what I have, a brutal assault by itself without any circumstances,
you know what I mean?  It's like looking at something in war.  You look at
somebody shooting somebody in war, you know what I mean?  They're at
war, there is a circumstance.  Why did you do what you did?"

   Lynn talked, and made incriminating statements.  The trial court suppressed the statements, and the people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression.  In coming to that conclusion, the court noted that when a suspect (in custodial interrogation) invokes his rights, the police must scrupulously honor that request.  Any such request by a defendant must be unambiguous, but the potential ambiguity turns on the totality of the circumstances, not just on the suspect's choice of words (in this case, some of the most pertinent factors were Lynn's tone of voice, the fact that he made his request during the Miranda advisement, his awareness of the charges against him, and the detective's characterization of the crime as "brutal" when talking to him).

   In cases where a defendant makes an ambiguous request for a lawyer, the police may continue with questioning which is designed to clarify the suspect's intent.  So it is permissible to ask a suspect whether or not he wants a lawyer if you're not sure what he meant.  But if it's obvious that the suspect is invoking his rights, then even clarifying questions are not permissible.

   In this case, the court held (after listening to the tape) that Lynn's request was obviously a request for a lawyer rather than a speculative question about when one would be available.  The court also held that even if it hadn't been an unambiguous request, the detective's little speech was not designed to clarify Lynn's intent but rather to convince him to waive his rights.  The court also noted that Lynn's subsequent ambiguous request (where he asked about talking to a lawyer after the interrogation) wasn't relevant, because it was made after he had already asked unambiguously for a lawyer.  

   This whole decision is basically the court's way of saying "no, really" when it comes to scrupulously honoring a suspect's invocation of his rights.

No comments:

Post a Comment