Decision here.
Zadran was arrested after being investigated for selling drugs. At the jail, he was interviewed by a narc after waiving Miranda. Before and during the interview, the narc kept it friendly and said a lot of things like "I'm just telling you what I'm going to talk to you about. I think it would be in your best interest to talk to me. I think you are going to be interested in some of the things that I already know. You don't have to talk to me. I'm going to advise you of your rights. I'm going to let you read this form, sign it, and you can talk to me. You don't have to."
Zadran made some inculpatory statements. The trial court ruled that the interview had been coerced, and suppressed all of it. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. No, I don't get it either. The court seemed to think that saying "I think it would be in your best interest" was an implied promise of leniency.
Anyway, the people filed an interlocutory appeal. In order for statements to be suppressed as involuntary, they have to be made at least partially as the result of coercive police conduct. Seeing as how there was nothing in this case which bore so much as a distant familial resemblance to coercive police conduct, the Supreme Court overruled the suppression of Zadran's statements, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment