Ex parte Raphael Jermine Landrum. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Raphael Jermine Landrum v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:08/27/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2010 1090119 Ex p a r t e R a p h a e l J e r m i n e Landrum PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : R a p h a e l J e r m i n e Landrum v. S t a t e o f Alabama) ( M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-08-739; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-08-0229) BOLIN, Justice. Raphael of Jermine certiorari to Landrum review petitions t h e Court this of Court Criminal f o ra writ Appeals' 1090119 decision affirming, court's decision custodial 24, unpublished memorandum, t o a l l o w i n t o e v i d e n c e Landrum's statement. Landrum v. S t a t e So. ( A l a . Crim. 2009) granted by 3d certiorari Criminal review Appeals' reasons, App. we affirm the Court inculpatory July 2009)(table). conflicts v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. trial (No. C R - 0 8 - 0 2 2 9 , c o n s i d e r whether decision i n t e r p r e t i n g Miranda following to the the Court with 436 We of precedent (1966). of C r i m i n a l For the Appeals' judgment. Facts and P r o c e d u r a l L a n d r u m , who charged was was murdering with 17 y e a r s o l d at the time Jimmie McGhee. denied him y o u t h f u l - o f f e n d e r s t a t u s , an adult. included The found 1975. The that sentence confinement trial was court split, The guilty trial of court tried the as lesser- See § 1 3 A - 6 - 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . sentenced a n d he was and t h e b a l a n c e of h i s a r r e s t , a n d L a n d r u m was Landrum offense of manslaughter. Code in jury History Landrum ordered t o 20 to serve was suspended, filed a motion with years, 5 years 4 years' probation. During inculpatory the t r i a l , statement Landrum to suppress he h a d made t o D e t e c t i v e M a c k 2 an Hardeman 1090119 of the Mobile motion, Police defense counsel following facts Detective Hardeman: 3:00 a.m., and On the During the r e g a r d i n g the Landrum headquarters Department. the State voluntarily g i v e n by of June turned 4, himself in Hardeman a d v i s e d Landrum of h i s M i r a n d a attempted to interrogate statement to Detective When Landrum's denying father Hardeman arrived, h i s involvement i n the enforcement officials Metro J a i l . informed the afternoon p.m., him of then 6, 2007, D e t e c t i v e Hardeman a r r i v e d Landrum c o n f e s s e d The following rights a and give a arrived. statement J i m m i e McGhee. to LawMobile between speak w i t h him. 3:00 p.m. and at the Mobile Metro J a i l Jimmie McGhee. o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the hearing: " [ L a n d r u m ' s c o u n s e l ] : I t e l l you what. J u d g e , I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s g o i n g t o be -- w e l l , i t m i g h t b e . I was g o i n g t o s a y I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s g o i n g t o be n e c e s s a r y f o r t e s t i m o n y . I t ' s m e r e l y g o i n g t o be a stipulation to the f a c t s . L e t ' s see i f you can 3 the c o n t a c t e d D e t e c t i v e Hardeman to having k i l l e d exchange at arrested. parents gave to around t r a n s p o r t e d Landrum to the t h a t Landrum wanted June of the refused to his Landrum death Landrum's g i r l f r i e n d and Landrum until to 2007, Detective but the Landrum o f t h e M o b i l e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t a n d was him, on stipulated statements morning hearing On 4:00 and 1090119 s t i p u l a t e t o i t . L e t ' s s e e i f we c a n s t i p u l a t e t h e f a c t u a l p o r t i o n o f i t . I t h i n k we c a n . to " T h e f i r s t t i m e -- T h i s i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I f y o u go a l o n g w i t h i t , t e l l t h e J u d g e . The f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e y i n t e r r o g a t e d R a p h a e l he w e n t down t o t h e headquarters on h i s own a n d t h a t was l i k e 3:00 i n t h e m o r n i n g o n J a n u a r y t h e 4 t h -- I m e a n t J u n e t h e 4th. I t was l i k e 3:00 o ' c l o c k i n t h e m o r n i n g on J u n e the 4 t h 2007. "[Prosecutor]: Uh-huh. " [ L a n d r u m ' s c o u n s e l ] : A t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e when they first attempted t o i n t e r r o g a t e him, they M i r a n d i z e d h i m a n d he s a i d I d o n ' t want t o t a l k t o a n y b o d y u n t i l my mama o r d a d d y g e t s down h e r e , o k a y ? So t h e y h e l d o f f . H i s d a d d y comes down. T h e n t h e y interrogate him. This i s early -- i n t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s o f June t h e 4 t h . A l l r i g h t . They send h i m t o M e t r o . He g i v e s a s t a t e m e n t . T h e y s e n d h i m t o M e t r o . D e t e c t i v e Hardeman t h e n h e a r s f r o m Landrum's g i r l f r i e n d , Raphael's g i r l f r i e n d , says Raphael wants t o t a l k t o y o u . Come down t o M e t r o . S o , [ D e t e c t i v e H a r d e m a n ] g o e s down t h e r e . He g e t s down t h e r e i n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f J u n e 6 t h 2 0 0 7 . I t h i n k i t was s o m e w h e r e i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d maybe o f 3:30 o r 4:00 o ' c l o c k . "CPL. HARDEMAN: A s b e s t a s I c a n r e m e m b e r , yeah. " [ L a n d r u m ' s c o u n s e l ] : When h e g o e s down t h e r e , I d o n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g i n my d i s c o v e r y t h a t t e l l s me o r t h a t I s e e w h e r e he r e - M i r a n d i z e d h i m a t t h a t t i m e , a n d w e ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t f r o m 3:00 o ' c l o c k i n t h e m o r n i n g o n J u n e 4 t h u n t i l s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n 3:30 and 4:00 o ' c l o c k on t h e a f t e r n o o n o f June 6 t h . That's n o t a tremendous span o f time, I u n d e r s t a n d but you've g o t t o r e a l i z e we're d e a l i n g w i t h a c h a l l e n g e d 1 7 - y e a r - o l d h e r e . A n d he may -- y o u may have re-Mirandized him, but i t ' s not i n the t r a n s c r i p t . I t ' s not i n the recording or anything w h e r e y o u r e - M i r a n d i z e d h i m . A l l y o u d i d was t e l l 4 1090119 h i m t h a t y o u came down t h e r e b e c a u s e h i s g i r l f r i e n d c a l l e d . S o , y o u k n o w , i f y o u r e - M i r a n d i z e d h i m -" C P L . HARDEMAN: I d i d n o t r e - M i r a n d i z e h i m . I b e l i e v e when I f i r s t w a l k e d i n , I s a i d , r e m e m b e r t h e r i g h t s I read you b e f o r e , and I keep t h e r e c o r d e r i n my p o c k e t a n d I t u r n e d t h e r e c o r d e r o n . A n d I d o n ' t know i f I s a i d t h a t b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e s t a t e m e n t . I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s on t h e t r a n s c r i b e d s t a t e m e n t , b u t I would have s a i d t h a t . H a v i n g r e a d someone t h e i r r i g h t s p r e v i o u s l y , I d o n ' t a l w a y s go b a c k a n d r e ¬ r e a d them t h e i r r i g h t s . "[Landrum's the counsel]: Okay. "THE COURT: How o l d was s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n ? "[Landrum's "CPL. counsel]: HARDEMAN: Y e s , "[Landrum's counsel]: "[Prosecutor]: C l a u d e , I mean -- When [Landrum] at the time He was 1 7 . s i r . And you challenged. say 'challenged,' "[Landrum's c o u n s e l ] : I t h i n k h e ' s somewhere i n the neighborhood o f a few p o i n t s below t h e l i n e . I t h i n k h e ' s g o i n g t o be a f e w p o i n t s o r more b e l o w 7 2 . The r e a s o n I s a y t h a t i s b e c a u s e I ' v e been d e a l i n g with him. I've d e a l t with the discovery. I don't have a c e r t i f i c a t e from a d o c t o r , b u t I can j u s t t e l l y o u r i g h t now -¬ "THE COURT: T h a t ' s a l r i g h t . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : J u d g e , when y o u l o o k e d at h i s r e c o r d f o r [ y o u t h f u l - o f f e n d e r s t a t u s ] , you can see t h a t h e c o m p l e t e d s c h o o l . T h e r e i s no -- H e ' s n o t p l e a d i n g g u i l t y by reason o f i n s a n i t y o r anything. 5 1090119 grade " [ L a n d r u m ' s c o u n s e l ] : He q u i t s c h o o l i n t h e 8 t h a n d h e n e v e r g o t a GED. I'm n o t u s i n g t h a t a s "THE COURT: I mean, I t h i n k y o u h a v e t o j u s t T h a t ' s n o t r e a l l y f o r me t o d e c i d e now. I mean, n o t many p e o p l e I s e e down h e r e on t h e c r i m i n a l d o c k e t have g o t P h i B e t a keys h a n g i n g around t h e i r necks. So, t h e l e g a l p r o p o s i t i o n i s i f y o u h a v e a 1 7 - y e a r o l d who i s p r o p e r l y M i r a n d i z e d -- D i d y o u g i v e h i m j u s t t h e r e g u l a r a d u l t Miranda o r d i d you g i v e him the j u v e n i l e Miranda? "CPL. Honor. HARDEMAN: The juvenile Miranda, Your "THE COURT: O k a y . S o , y o u g a v e h i m j u v e n i l e M i r a n d a , a p p a r e n t l y , e a r l y h o u r s a.m. o n t h e 4 t h . So, 48 h o u r s p l u s a f e w l a t e r , d e p e n d i n g on w h a t t i m e i n t h e a f t e r n o o n y o u w e n t down t h e r e -- Am I doing that right? "CPL. HARDEMAN: R o u g h l y , 36 h o u r s o r 48 - "[Landrum's c o u n s e l ] : June 4 t h t o June 5 t h i s 24. 5 t h t o t h e 6 t h i s 48, a n d t h e n y o u ' v e g o t f r o m 3:00 o ' c l o c k i n t h e m o r n i n g o n t h e 6 t h u p t i l l 4:00 i n t h e a f t e r n o o n . So, t h a t ' s a l m o s t a n o t h e r w e l l , i t i s a n o t h e r 12 h o u r s . T h a t ' s w h a t , 60 h o u r s ? "THE COURT: S o , i f a p e r s o n i s p r o p e r l y j u v e n i l e M i r a n d i z e d , r e f u s e s t o g i v e a s t a t e m e n t u n l e s s one o f h i s p a r e n t s i s t h e r e , t h e y w a i t , p a r e n t comes, s t a t e m e n t i s t a k e n on t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g o f t h e 4 t h . And t h e n a t sometime t h e r e a f t e r , word i s r e c e i v e d t h a t [Landrum] wants t o a g a i n t a l k t o t h e p o l i c e . T h e y go b a c k a n d i n q u i r e a s do y o u r e m e m b e r t h e r i g h t s I r e a d y o u b e f o r e . Y e s . Do y o u s t i l l w a n t t o t a l k t o me o r w o r d s t o t h a t e f f e c t . Y e s . A n d a s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n . So, I guess t h e l e g a l p r o p o s i t i o n i s what p e r i o d o f t i m e f o r a j u v e n i l e 6 1090119 has t o l a p s e b e f o r e i t ' s n e c e s s a r y t o r e - M i r a n d i z e them and have them s i g n w a i v e r s , e t c e t e r a . " The hearing continued, Landrum's not be the Ultimately, arguments. with the trial s t a t e m e n t made lawyers making their court concluded that i n the afternoon o f June 6 s h o u l d be suppressed. Discussion The Fifth provides that criminal case Amend. V. Amendment to the United "[n]o person ... t o be a w i t n e s s In Miranda, States shall against the United be The compelled himself." States that the right against s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n during Constitution U.S. Supreme Supreme Court 469. Court i n Miranda present Before informed further held that "the right to at the i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s indispensable to " 384 U.S. a c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a suspect of these rights, now c o m m o n l y statement he d o e s make t h a t he h a s a r i g h t may be u s e d must to remain the person silent, as e v i d e n c e t h a t any against t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f an a t t o r n e y , 7 be r e f e r r e d t o as M i r a n d a 384 U.S. a t 444 ( " P r i o r t o a n y q u e s t i o n i n g , m u s t b e w a r n e d t h a t he h a s a r i g h t and held " i sf u l l y applicable t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e F i f t h Amendment p r i v i l e g e rights. Const. a p e r i o d o f c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . " 384 U.S. a t 4 6 0 . have c o u n s e l at i n any him, either 1090119 retained or appointed."). The Supreme r e c o g n i z e d t h a t " t h e d e f e n d a n t may w a i v e rights, provided knowingly, Two the waiver and i n t e l l i g e n t l y . " factors defendant that affect has waived in Miranda e f f e c t u a t i o n of these i s made voluntarily, Id. the these Court determination of whether a rights: " F i r s t , t h e r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f t h e r i g h t must have b e e n v o l u n t a r y i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t was t h e p r o d u c t of a free and d e l i b e r a t e choice rather than i n t i m i d a t i o n , c o e r c i o n , o r d e c e p t i o n . Second, t h e w a i v e r m u s t h a v e b e e n made w i t h a f u l l a w a r e n e s s o f both t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r i g h t b e i n g abandoned and t h e consequences o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o abandon i t . Only i f the ' t o t a l i t y of the circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n ' r e v e a l b o t h an u n c o e r c e d c h o i c e a n d the r e q u i s i t e l e v e l of comprehension may a c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e M i r a n d a r i g h t s have been waived." Moran v. B u r b i n e , Fields, Court 4 7 5 U.S. 4 5 9 U.S. 4 2 , 4 8 - 4 9 rejected 412 , 4 2 1 (1982), a p e r se r u l e (1 98 6 ) . the United States requiring Supreme to readvise a of h i s Miranda results o f a p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n , when he h a d r e q u e s t e d t h e before taking approach "[T]he examination before police v. suspect polygraph rights In Wyrick and had waived the examination, focusing on circumstances the q u e s t i o n i n g him those i n favor totality [had n o t ] changed 8 of rights i n writing o f a more the about flexible circumstances. so s e r i o u s l y that h i s 1090119 answers no making l o n g e r were a 'knowing rights." Wyrick, 451 477, U.S. voluntary, and 459 482 or intelligent U.S. a t 47 (1981)). ... "[T]he questions forget rights had he had u n d e r s t o o d moments b e f o r e . " The issue in this case t o Landrum became s t a l e facts of t h i s was of his Arizona, put to [the not have caused him been a d v i s e d and Wyrick, i s whether given longer ( q u o t i n g Edwards v. a f t e r the examination would of which no relinquishment' defendant] the he 459 the U.S. which at Miranda or were too remote to he 49. warnings based on the case. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t once M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s h a v e b e e n g i v e n a n d a w a i v e r made, a f a i l u r e t o repeat the warnings before a subsequent i n t e r r o g a t i o n w i l l not a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r e c l u d e the admission of the i n c u l p a t o r y response. Fagan v. S t a t e , 412 So. 2 d 1282 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) ; Smoot v . S t a t e , 383 So. 2 d 605 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1980)." Hollander 1982). v. State, length 2d 970, of time are 47 A l a . A p p . with 972 s h o u l d be (Ala. Crim. App. given before each must depend upon t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f each interrogations State, So. "Whether M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s interrogation The 418 and the relevant 568, events matters 570, 258 So. which to 2d occur consider." 910, 912 case. between Jones (1972). "'Once t h e m a n d a t e o f M i r a n d a h a s b e e n c o m p l i e d at the t h r e s h o l d of the q u e s t i o n i n g i t i s not 9 v. 1090119 necessary to repeat the warnings at the beginning of e a c h s u c c e s s i v e i n t e r v i e w . ' G i b s o n v . S t a t e , 347 S o . 2 d 5 7 6 , 582 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ) . S e e a l s o C l e c k l e r v . S t a t e , 570 S o . 2 d 796 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) . "'An a c c u s e d may be r e a d t h e M i r a n d a r i g h t s p r i o r t o one i n t e r r o g a t i o n b u t n o t confess u n t i l a l a t e r interrogation during w h i c h t h e r e was no r e r e a d i n g o f t h e M i r a n d a w a r n i n g . As a g e n e r a l r u l e , i t has been held that Miranda warnings are not required to be given before each separate interrogation of a defendant after an o r i g i n a l w a i v e r o f t h e accused's r i g h t s has b e e n made. However, i f such a l o n g p e r i o d of time has e l a p s e d between t h e o r i g i n a l Miranda warning and the subsequent c o n f e s s i o n t h a t i t c a n be s a i d t h a t , u n d e r the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e a c c u s e d was n o t impressed with the o r i g i n a l reading of h i s r i g h t s i n making the u l t i m a t e c o n f e s s i o n , then the confession should be held inadmissible.' "C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , 2 0 1 . 0 9 ( 5 t h ed. 1997) (footnotes omitted). See P h i l l i p s v. S t a t e , 668 S o . 2 d 8 8 1 , 883 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Powell In v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. E x p a r t e J.D.H., 797 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 0 was a r r e s t e d degree 796 S o . 2 d 4 0 4 , 414 sexual and c h a r g e d w i t h abuse. rights; he w a i v e d police. He s a i d first-degree Officers those rights, ( A l a . 2001), J.D.H. sodomy a n d first- a d v i s e d him of h i s Miranda a n d he a g r e e d nothing incriminating, a polygraph examination. t o speak with b u t he a g r e e d t o t a k e He was p l a c e d i n j a i l . 10 1999). Sixteen days 1090119 later he was b r o u g h t examination. to the courthouse The i n d i v i d u a l who to take the polygraph administered the polygraph, an e m p l o y e e o f t h e A l a b a m a B u r e a u o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n , a prepolygraph interview. conducted J.D.H. r e c e i v e d no M i r a n d a warnings b e f o r e t h a t i n t e r v i e w , a n d no o n e r e m i n d e d h i m o f h i s p r e v i o u s waiver. The prepolygraph questionnaire. questions The about explanations examiner also he J.D.H. was g u i l t y to take and t h a t , the polygraph polygraph examiner examination. took a confession. results right against him and The telling that he he did detailed asked d i d n o t know tells whether he s h o u l d n o t J.D.H. not for polygraph J.D.H., a s he i f he w e r e g u i l t y , examination. that J.D.H. written then want to told the take the The e x a m i n e r c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t o r b a c k to the examination then J.D.H., examines, asked of a allegations. f o r those spoke w i t h the persons consisted questionnaire the a l l e g a t i o n s possible all interview r o o m a t J.D.H.'s r e q u e s t . statement A t no would to remain be time from was J.D.H. J.D.H. inadmissible silent, that told i n court, The i n v e s t i g a t o r amounted that that the attorney. 11 a polygraph he s t i l l o r t h a t he h a d t h e r i g h t to had a to consult an 1090119 With Miranda regard warnings t o t h e amount of time and t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n elapsed between t h e i n J.D.H., t h i s Court stated: "This Court recognizes that the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals has a l i n e of cases h o l d i n g t h a t once Miranda warnings have been given and t h e defendant h a s made a k n o w i n g , intelligent, and v o l u n t a r y waiver, a f a i l u r e to repeat the warnings w i l l n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r e c l u d e t h e a d m i s s i o n o f an i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t . S e e H o l l a n d e r v . S t a t e , 418 So. 2 d 970 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 982) (between 1 and 1.75 h o u r s p a s s e d w h i l e p o l i c e w e r e s e a r c h i n g h o u s e ; no r e p e a t o f M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s ) ; F a g a n v . S t a t e , 412 So. 2 d 1 2 8 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1982 ) ( l a p s e o f 3 1/2 h o u r s d i d n o t r e q u i r e a r e n e w e d w a r n i n g ) ; Smoot v . S t a t e , 3 8 3 S o . 2 d 605 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) ( l a p s e of 30 minutes between the warnings and t h e s t a t e m e n t ) ; B u r l i s o n v . S t a t e , 3 6 9 S o . 2 d 844 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) ( l a p s e o f 45 m i n u t e s b e t w e e n t h e reading of Miranda warnings and t h e t a k i n g o f a statement d i dnot require a repeat of the warnings); J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 56 A l a . A p p . 5 8 3 , 324 S o . 2 d 298 (1975)(three t o f o u r days, w i t h a reminder o f t h e w a r n i n g s ) ; J o n e s v . S t a t e , 47 A l a . A p p . 5 6 8 , 258 S o . 2d 910 (1972)(warning was given one day and s t a t e m e n t made t h e f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g ) . H o w e v e r , we n o t e t h a t i n m o s t o f t h o s e c a s e s t h e t i m e l a p s e was n o t more t h a n a few h o u r s . I n none o f t h o s e c a s e s d i d t h e l a p s e exceed a few days w i t h o u t a t l e a s t a reminder of the warnings. See J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , supra." 7 97 So. emphasized that 2d at other warranted 1131-32. However, this circumstances, besides suppressing the statement. 12 Court in t h e amount The C o u r t J.D.H. of time, stated: 1090119 "The t i m e t h a t p a s s e d b e t w e e n t h e d a t e J.D.H. was g i v e n t h e M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s a n d t h e d a t e he made t h e c o n f e s s i o n was 16 d a y s , o r 2 w e e k s a n d 2 d a y s . I t i s this Court's opinion that after two weeks t h e warnings o r d i n a r i l y w i l l have l o s t t h e i r e f f i c a c y . However, t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a c o n f e s s i o n was v o l u n t a r y a c o u r t s h o u l d l o o k t o t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . McLeod v. S t a t e , 718 S o . 2 d 727 ( A l a . ) , on r e m a n d , 718 S o . 2 d 731 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 524 U.S. 9 2 9 , 118 S . C t . 2 3 2 7 , 141 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . The l a p s e of t i m e i n t h i s c a s e , c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f the circumstances surrounding the confession, required that the evidence regarding that confession be excluded, there being no showing that the d e f e n d a n t h a d r e c e i v e d a new w a r n i n g b e f o r e he made the c o n f e s s i o n . "The defendant agreed to take a polygraph e x a m i n a t i o n when h e was f i r s t a r r e s t e d . The r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t he h a d a n y c o n t r o l o v e r when t h e e x a m w o u l d b e g i v e n . On N o v e m b e r 22 , 1 9 9 6 , J.D.H. was t a k e n f r o m t h e j a i l t o t h e c o u r t h o u s e . A t t h e c o u r t h o u s e , h e met [ t h e p o l y g r a p h examiner] and filled out the prepolygraph written questionnaire. The q u e s t i o n s o n t h a t f o r m asked s p e c i f i c a l l y about t h e charges a g a i n s t him and asked him t o admit o r t o deny t h e a l l e g a t i o n s and t o p r o v i d e p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s . When [ t h e p o l y g r a p h examiner] reviewed t h e forms and then 'advised' J.D.H. t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t t a k e t h e t e s t i f h e was g u i l t y , [ t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r ] d i d n o t t e l l J.D.H. t h a t t h e t e s t r e s u l t s were i n a d m i s s i b l e . When [ t h e polygraph examiner] a d v i s e d J.D.H. n o t t o t a k e t h e t e s t i f h e was g u i l t y , he d i d n o t s a y t h a t J.D.H. c o u l d r e f u s e t o take t h e t e s t by o p t i n g t o 'remain silent.' Nor d i d [ t h e p o l y g r a p h examiner] tell J.D.H. t h a t r e m a i n i n g s i l e n t was s t i l l a n o p t i o n . I n s t e a d , when J.D.H. s a i d h e d i d n o t w a n t t o t a k e the test, [the polygraph examiner] told [the i n v e s t i g a t o r ] t h a t J.D.H. h a d ' c o n f e s s e d . ' 13 1090119 "These actions were designed to e l i c i t an i n c r i m i n a t i n g response. See Rhode I s l a n d v . I n n i s , 446 U.S. 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 , 100 S . C t . 1 6 8 2 , 64 L . E d . 2 d 297 (1980) (police action constitutes interrogation i f the actions o r words a r e ' r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y to elicit an i n c r i m i n a t i n g r e s p o n s e ' ) . These actions overbore any w i l l J.D.H. may h a v e h a d t o r e m a i n s i l e n t a n d n o t i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f . The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e no o n e p r o m i s e d a n y t h i n g t o J.D.H. t h e actions of [the polygraph examiner] and [ t h e detective] were not coercive. However, their a c t i o n s w e r e f a r more c o e r c i v e a n d o v e r b e a r i n g t h a n a mere m e n t i o n o f l e n i e n c y . The o f f i c e r s r e m o v e d J.D.H.'s c h o i c e t o be s i l e n t . T h e y b a c k e d h i m i n t o a c o r n e r . I f J.D.H. t o o k t h e t e s t a n d f a i l e d i t , [the polygraph examiner] would 'know' J.D.H. was g u i l t y ; i f J.D.H. c h o s e n o t t o t a k e t h e t e s t , b y choosing to remain silent, then [the polygraph e x a m i n e r ] w o u l d know t h a t he was g u i l t y . In fact, [the p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r ] t o o k J.D.H.'s r e f u s a l t o t a k e t h e t e s t t o be a ' c o n f e s s i o n , ' a n d t h a t r e f u s a l was t h e n u s e d t o c a u s e h i m t o f e e l t h a t he h a d no c h o i c e b u t t o c o n f e s s . [The p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r ] u s e d the defendant's choosing to remain s i l e n t to coerce him i n t o c o n f e s s i n g . "The p u r p o s e o f a M i r a n d a w a r n i n g i s t o e n s u r e that any waiver of the right against selfincrimination i s a knowing, intelligent, and v o l u n t a r y o n e . T h e r e was n o t h i n g v o l u n t a r y about J.D.H.'s w a i v e r o f h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . " Ex p a r t e J.D.H., Other have the Cir. 797 a t courts become stale, interrogation. 1984), have, 1132-33. i n a d d r e s s i n g whether Miranda rights f o c u s e d on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g In J a r r e l l v. Balkcom, Jarrell c o n f e s s e d t o murder, 14 735 F . 2 d 1242 ( 1 1 t h k i d n a p p i n g , armed 1090119 robbery, after and aggravated receiving his assault approximately Miranda warnings investigator at c i t y hall. Jarrell rights, being arrested. even after received h i s Miranda escorted from city warnings hall i n t e r v i e w e d by a p o l i c e the d i s t r i c t was he was interrogated then arrested for an From the time he c o n f e s s e d , Jarrell Jarrell was w h e r e he headquarters, where a p o l y g r a p h d r i v e n back by the additional confessing. to p o l i c e same 30 Jarrell police to 45 was argued warnings s h o u l d have been r e f r e s h e d and t h a t , headquarters, sergeant, that the by and the Miranda t h e r e f o r e , the inadmissible. " U n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , we do n o t view a c o n f e s s i o n given l e s s than f o u r hours after the issuance of Miranda warnings inadmissible because of the f a i l u r e to reissue the warnings. Although Jarrell was not t e c h n i c a l l y i n custody u n t i l he was a r r e s t e d , he was a s u s p e c t f r o m t h e moment he received h i s warnings. The record r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e w a r n i n g s g i v e n were complete and that Jarrell understood them. Cf. Edwards v. I n d i a n a , 412 N . E . 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 5 - 2 6 ( I n d . 1 9 8 0 ) (where d e f e n d a n t , n o t y e t a s u s p e c t , was g i v e n o r a l l y h i s M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s a n d r e c o r d c o n t a i n e d no e v i d e n c e o f content of o r a l advisement, c o n f e s s i o n given 5 hours later when defendant h a d become a suspect not 15 to examination minutes before was police r e a d v i s e d of h i s sergeant confession a hours sergeant, d r i v e n from headquarters attorney's office, administered, where to police from was n e v e r until three 1090119 admissible). Furthermore, the f a c t that Jarrell confessed to a state o f f i c e r (Blannott) other than the one who a d m i n i s t e r e d the Miranda warnings ( B i s h o p ) , does not r e n d e r the w a r n i n g s i n s u f f i c i e n t , especially since, before interrogating Jarrell, B l a n n o t t asked Bishop i n J a r r e l l ' s presence whether p e t i t i o n e r h a d r e c e i v e d h i s M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s . (T.T. 5 4 5 ) . See S t a t e v . G a l l a g h e r , 36 O h i o A p p . 2 d 7 9 , 301 N.E.2d 888 (1973) (change from one state interrogator to another insufficient break to require fresh warnings). Cf. United States v. Hopkins, 433 F.2d 1041 ( 5 t h C i r . 1970 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 401 U.S. 1 0 1 3 , 91 S . C t . 1 2 5 2 , 28 L . E d . 2 d 550 (1971) (change f r o m s t a t e p o l i c e o f f i c e r q u e s t i o n i n g defendant about state crime to federal officer q u e s t i o n i n g a b o u t f e d e r a l c r i m e ; no new warnings r e q u i r e d ) ; M i t c h e l l v. S t a t e , 3 Tenn. C r . App. 153, 458 S.W.2d 630 (1970) (questioning regarding d i f f e r e n t c r i m e o c c u r r e d on f o l l o w i n g d a y ; no new w a r n i n g s r e q u i r e d ) . We c o n c l u d e t h a t no v i o l a t i o n o f petitioner's rights o c c u r r e d by the failure to r e i s s u e the Miranda warnings at the time of a r r e s t b e c a u s e t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e f a c t s do n o t reflect t h a t J a r r e l l was u n a w a r e o f h i s r i g h t s , t h a t he was pressured, o r t h a t he was mentally deficient or naive about the process that was under way. A d d i t i o n a l l y , J a r r e l l had had p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s where h i s r i g h t s were explained." 735 F.2d In at 1254. Martin v. 1985) , m o d i f i e d on 1986) , the Wainwright, other United States 770 grounds, Court of F.2d 781 918 , 930 (11th C i r . F.2d (11th C i r . Appeals 185 f o r the Eleventh C i r c u i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the d e f e n d a n t ' s M i r a n d a r i g h t s had b e e n v i o l a t e d when he made h i s s e c o n d 16 confession, even not though 1090119 the defendant and the p o l i c e F.2d at had the reaching h i s Miranda d i d not f u l l y 930-31. d e f e n d a n t was In waived rights one week earlier r e a d v i s e him 770 the Before of h i s r i g h t s . interrogation, the second given a d e t a i l e d reminder of h i s Miranda i t s conclusion, defendant had been the court "fully relied warned, rights. on t h e f a c t and that knowingly and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived h i s Miranda r i g h t s , " and t h a t , d u r i n g second he interrogation, rights." 770 search F.2d at v. Jones, involved o f an police a automobile defendant next ("DEA") T a s k and 7:00 or p.m. a t 11:23 early he to in F. who i n which and statements 14 147 defendant sergeant, inculpatory February that understood those 930. read h i s Miranda r i g h t s a "indicated States United 2001), he the Supp. was he waived the sergeant the morning a Drug Force agent on February agent rights. late of on He 15, He the February Enforcement d i d not was 2001, think by gave night 15. a of The Administration between the M i r a n d a r i g h t s were r e r e a d t o him b e f o r e the second 17 Mich. following a passenger. those with DEA (E.D. on F e b r u a r y 14, 2 0 0 1 , met The 752 arrested was p.m. 2d 6:00 defendant's interview. 1090119 With regard become s t a l e , t o whether the court the defendant's Miranda warning had stated: "The q u e s t i o n t h u s b e c o m e s w h e t h e r t h e p a s s a g e of time between Defendant's b e i n g p r o v i d e d w i t h h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s on F e b r u a r y 14 a n d h i s i n t e r v i e w w i t h [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] on F e b r u a r y 15 r e n d e r e d h i s M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s s t a l e . T h e r e i s no b l a n k e t r u l e f o r when p o l i c e must r e m i n d a s u s p e c t o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s , and t h e mere e l a p s e o f t i m e does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e t h a t p o l i c e g i v e f r e s h w a r n i n g s . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Weekley, 130 F . 3 d 747 , 751 (6th C i r . 1997). Instead, the inquiry c o m e s down t o two q u e s t i o n s : (1) w h e t h e r , when he r e c e i v e d h i s M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s , D e f e n d a n t knew a n d u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s ; and (2) w h e t h e r a n y t h i n g happened between the warnings and Defendant's inculpatory statements, including the passage of time or any other i n t e r v e n i n g event, that rendered Defendant unable t o f u l l y c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t o f an e x e r c i s e o r w a i v e r of those r i g h t s b e f o r e s p e a k i n g w i t h p o l i c e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . V a s q u e z , 889 F. S u p p . 1 7 1 , 177 (M.D. P a . 1995). "[The police sergeant's] uncontradicted t e s t i m o n y was t h a t D e f e n d a n t u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s u n d e r M i r a n d a , as e v i n c e d b y D e f e n d a n t ' s s i g n i n g o f t h e M i r a n d a w a i v e r . The C o u r t f i n d s t h i s t e s t i m o n y credible and c o n c l u d e s that Defendant knew a n d u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s when he r e c e i v e d h i s M i r a n d a warnings. "More t h a n e i g h t e e n h o u r s h a d p a s s e d , h o w e v e r , between the Miranda warnings that [the p o l i c e sergeant] gave Defendant on February 14 and Defendant's interview with [ t h e DEA agent] on February 15. D u r i n g that period, t h e r e was an i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the c o n t i n u i t y of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n , as [ t h e p o l i c e s e r g e a n t ] h a d c e a s e d h i s q u e s t i o n i n g a t 1:13 a.m. on F e b r u a r y 15 a n d [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] d i d n o t b e g i n h i s i n t e r v i e w e a r l i e r t h a n 6:00 p.m. ( H r g . 18 1090119 T r . a t 9 0 : 8 . ) T h e r e was a c h a n g e i n l o c a t i o n b e t w e e n the i n t e r v i e w that [the p o l i c e sergeant] conducted a n d t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n d o n e b y [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] . The f o r m e r was a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n ; t h e l a t t e r was a t the f e d e r a l b u i l d i n g . ( H r g . T r . 8 9 , 1 0 5 . ) [ T h e DEA a g e n t ] who c o n d u c t e d t h e i n t e r v i e w o f D e f e n d a n t o n February 15, was not the same officer who a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e w a r n i n g s on F e b r u a r y 14. A l l o f these f a c t o r s m i l i t a t e toward the conclusion that Defendant c o u l d not f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e a waiver ofh i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s w h e n he s p o k e t o [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] o n F e b r u a r y 15 a n d t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s t o [ t h e DEA agent] must therefore be suppressed. See C o m m o n w e a l t h v . D i x o n , 475 P a . 3 6 5 , 380 A . 2 d 7 6 5 , 767-69 (1977). The C o u r t a p p r e h e n d s no factors m i l i t a t i n g toward the opposite c o n c l u s i o n . "Considering the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, the Court holds that Defendant's Miranda warnings w e r e s t a l e when he s p o k e t o [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] on F e b r u a r y 1 5 . The C o u r t w i l l o r d e r s u p p r e s s e d a n y i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s t h a t D e f e n d a n t made t o [ t h e DEA a g e n t ] d u r i n g t h e i r i n t e r v i e w o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 . " 147 F. S u p p . 2d a t 761-62. In U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Pruden, 2005), the defendant was 398 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 6 - 4 7 arrested by A l c o h o l , (3d C i r . Tobacco, and Firearm ("ATF") a g e n t s a t a r o u t i n e m e e t i n g w i t h h i s p r o b a t i o n officer on J a n u a r y agents. Before questioning, willing to talk, one of the agents defendant 14, 2003. and, upon He was q u e s t i o n e d b y two ATF t h e d e f e n d a n t was a s k e d i f he was receiving an a f f i r m a t i v e read the defendant h i s Miranda indicated t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s 19 answer, rights. The and d i d n o t 1090119 ask a q u e s t i o n or r e q u e s t a lawyer. answer the t h e ATF agents' questions. defendant f o r about h a l f gone to a gun shop denied that either guns f o r him. and The The ATF an h o u r . that he defendant He agents a d m i t t e d t h a t he examined took the some 15, questioned defendant 2003, the from one of the defendant and the jail hearing. The original procedures to the prosecutor before trial. defendant should be too planned that, to ask The the ATF had attempted to i f he to questions during and ATF who ATF had agent for informed r e a d him agent agent h i s Miranda remembered h i s r i g h t s . the ride to a next explained the i n i t i a l ATF to The federal morning, originally drove he initial the booking him that to d e t a i n had rights to to say, appearance, then the an indicated anything else original defendant buy the m a g i s t r a t e judge after that he courthouse agent original defendant answer to i f t h e r e was The agents another defendant say i t because, late. ATF guns, had but defendant d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r , w h e r e he s p e n t t h e n i g h t . January to agents questioned of the p e o p l e w i t h him had The agreed the him the he i t would reminded the and the asked The defendant agreed the courthouse. The d e f e n d a n t t h e n made s t a t e m e n t s t h a t d i f f e r e d f r o m h i s o r i g i n a l 20 1090119 statements. on January addressed The d e f e n d a n t l a t e r a r g u e d t h a t h i s s e c o n d w a i v e r 15 was the issue not knowing of stale or Miranda intelligent. warnings as The follows: " [ T ] h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a s u s p e c t n e e d s t o be w a r n e d when q u e s t i o n i n g r e s u m e s b o i l s down t o w h e t h e r t h e s u s p e c t can and does e f f e c t i v e l y waive h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s a t t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n i n g . As Judge M c C l u r e has a p t l y p u t i t , "'the q u e s t i o n of whether a time lapse renders Miranda warnings 'stale' may b e r e d u c e d t o a n s w e r i n g t w o q u e s t i o n s : (1) A t the time the Miranda warnings were provided, d i d the defendant know and understand h i s rights? (2) D i d a n y t h i n g occur between the warnings and the statement, whether the passage of time or other i n t e r v e n i n g event, which rendered the defendant unable to consider fully and properly the effect o f an e x e r c i s e or waiver of those r i g h t s b e f o r e making a statement to law enforcement officers?"' " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Vasquez, 889 F. S u p p . 1 7 1 , 177 (M.D. Pa. 1995). We now adopt this eminently sensible framework f o r analyzing the e f f e c t of delays between Miranda warnings and custodial statements. "The f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r P r u d e n knew a n d understood his rights at the time the Miranda w a r n i n g s w e r e g i v e n on J a n u a r y 1 4 . A s explained a b o v e , we t h i n k t h a t t h e a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n m u s t be y e s . The s e c o n d q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e passage o f t i m e o r an i n t e r v e n i n g e v e n t r e n d e r e d Pruden unable to effectively waive h i s Miranda r i g h t s w h e n he was q u e s t i o n e d a g a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g . A s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f t i m e p a s s e d b e t w e e n the Miranda warnings and Pruden's January 15 21 court 1090119 statement: the r e c o r d does not r e f l e c t the exact a m o u n t , b u t i t s e e m s t h a t P r u d e n was a r r e s t e d i n t h e a f t e r n o o n on J a n u a r y 14 a n d q u e s t i o n e d a g a i n i n t h e morning of January 15, s u g g e s t i n g a t i m e l a p s e o f perhaps twenty hours. This i s longer than the p e r i o d s i n v o l v e d i n [Guam v . ] D e l a P e n a [ , 72 F.3d 767 (9th C i r . 1995)] ( f i f t e e n h o u r s ) and Vasquez ( t h r e e h o u r s ) , a n d d o e s s e e m t o be a t t h e u p p e r e n d o f t h e p e r m i s s i b l e r a n g e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , A g e n t Kusheba s p e c i f i c a l l y reminded Pruden of h i s r i g h t s b e f o r e r e s u m i n g q u e s t i o n s , and P r u d e n r e s p o n d e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s , d i d not ask Kusheba to r e p e a t t h e m , a n d was w i l l i n g t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s . " B e y o n d t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e , we can f i n d no o t h e r r e l e v a n t e v e n t t h a t c o u l d have l e s s e n e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Pruden's M i r a n d a w a i v e r . There are no a l l e g a t i o n s of m i s t r e a t m e n t , intimidation, or d e p r i v a t i o n of food or s l e e p d u r i n g the i n t e r v e n i n g d e t e n t i o n . On b o t h J a n u a r y 14 a n d J a n u a r y 15, P r u d e n was q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e same ATF A g e n t , K u s h e b a , a b o u t t h e same o f f e n s e s . The c h a r g e s w e r e n o t e s c a l a t i n g , s e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M a r c , C r i m . No. 9 6 - 7 6 - S L R (D. D e l . 1997) (suppressing statement taken 10 hours a f t e r M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s when s u s p e c t was a r r e s t e d a n d warned f o r misdemeanor drug p o s s e s s i o n , but later q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t f e l o n y f i r e a r m c h a r g e s ) , and t h e r e w e r e no s u r p r i s e s t h a t m i g h t h a v e c o n f u s e d Pruden. Nor is there any reason to think that the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e q u e s t i o n i n g -- i n a p o l i c e c a r on the way to court -were particularly intimidating. Pruden points out that he had ' l i t e r a l l y no c h o i c e b u t t o s t a y w i t h t h e agents' d u r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n i n g . T h a t i s t r u e , b u t we c a n n o t s e e how that fact distinguishes this questioning f r o m any o t h e r c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . "Finally, Pruden a l l e g e s t h a t Agent Kusheba d e c e i v e d him i n t o w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t s by suggesting t h a t he s h o u l d make a s t a t e m e n t b e f o r e t h e initial a p p e a r a n c e , a t w h i c h p o i n t ' i t w o u l d be t o o late.' A g e n t K u s h e b a a p p a r e n t l y meant t h a t , i f P r u d e n had 22 1090119 nothing else to say before the appearance, the p r o s e c u t o r w o u l d move t o h a v e h i m d e t a i n e d b e f o r e trial. As t h i s a p p e a r s t o have been t r u e , i t i s difficult t o s e e how i t constitutes deception. Furthermore, t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t Kusheba's s t a t e m e n t c o e r c e d P r u d e n , who u n h e s i t a t i n g l y a g r e e d to talk. "The r e l a t i v e l y l o n g t i m e b e t w e e n t h e M i r a n d a warnings and t h e statement a t i s s u e , t h e change o f l o c a t i o n , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between Pruden's January 14 a n d 15 s t a t e m e n t s , a n d t h e l a c k o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n of Pruden's waiver a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t might counsel against finding an e f f e c t i v e M i r a n d a w a i v e r d u r i n g t h e J a n u a r y 15 q u e s t i o n i n g . These factors make this a fairly close case. Ultimately, however, we think that t h e changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s were n o t enough t o i m p a i r Pruden's ability t o make a k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y M i r a n d a w a i v e r . Because Agent Kusheba reminded Pruden of h i s Miranda rights, albeit without repeating those rights in full, and because Pruden plainly remembered t h e w a r n i n g s and u n h e s i t a t i n g l y agreed t o t a l k , we h o l d t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t was made p u r s u a n t t o an e f f e c t i v e M i r a n d a w a i v e r , a n d s h o u l d n o t h a v e been s u p p r e s s e d . " Pruden, In 398 F . 3 d a t 2 4 6 - 4 8 . the present case, 60 h o u r s had e l a p s e d time Landrum had been g i v e n h i s j u v e n i l e M i r a n d a t h e t i m e he c o n f e s s e d . 1 between the warnings D e t e c t i v e Hardeman h a d g i v e n and Landrum R u l e 11(B) o f t h e Alabama Rules of J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e , effective at the time o f Landrum's arrest, and since rescinded, lists the "Rights of a C h i l d Before Being Questioned While i n Custody." The i n t e r r o g a t o r m u s t i n f o r m a j u v e n i l e o f t h e s e r i g h t s b e f o r e q u e s t i o n i n g h i m on " a n y t h i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a r g e " f o r w h i c h he was a r r e s t e d . T h e y i n c l u d e "the r i g h t t o communicate" w i t h the c h i l d ' s c o u n s e l , p a r e n t , 1 23 1090119 the Miranda after warnings Landrum Nothing rights parents turned indicated read being taken from himself to him. 2 into the of June police Landrum's police father i n McGhee's department arrived, death. to the 4, 2007 , department. the Landrum r e f u s e d t o t a l k u n t i l involved the morning t h a t Landrum d i d not u n d e r s t a n d arrived. denied i n the e a r l y Miranda one o f h i s and Landrum police Landrum was then station. Landrum's g i r l f r i e n d c o n t a c t e d D e t e c t i v e Hardeman and t o l d h i m o r g u a r d i a n a n d , i f he o r s h e i s n o t p r e s e n t , " i f n e c e s s a r y , r e a s o n a b l e means w i l l be p r o v i d e d f o r t h e c h i l d t o do s o . " T h e s e r i g h t s a r e now p r o v i d e d f o r i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 0 2 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , a p a r t o f t h e new J u v e n i l e C o d e . 2 Fare "The t o t a l i t y - o f - t h e - c i r c u m s t a n c e s a p p r o a c h i s adequate t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e has been a w a i v e r even where i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f juveniles i s involved. We discern no p e r s u a s i v e r e a s o n s why a n y o t h e r a p p r o a c h i s r e q u i r e d where t h e q u e s t i o n i s whether a juvenile has waived his rights, as o p p o s e d t o w h e t h e r an a d u l t h a s d o n e s o . The t o t a l i t y a p p r o a c h p e r m i t s -- i n d e e d , i t mandates -inquiry into a l l the circumstances surrounding the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . This includes e v a l u a t i o n of the j u v e n i l e ' s age, e x p e r i e n c e , e d u c a t i o n , background, and intelligence, and into w h e t h e r he h a s t h e c a p a c i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d the warnings g i v e n him, the nature of h i s Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those r i g h t s . " v. M i c h a e l C., 442 U.S. 7 0 7 , 725 24 (1979). 1090119 that Landrum June 6, wanted 2007, Detective Landrum c o n f e s s e d advise Landrum to speak to him of h i s Miranda earlier. the statement spoke rights reminded Landrum [second] appears Hardeman again statement." t o be At internally be interpretation testimony, gesture. taken a n d t h e one a p p a r e n t l y t h a t D e t e c t i v e Hardeman the then the he fact turned that, i f he he rights d i d not "before glance, inconsistent -- the i s taken more of D e t e c t i v e taken by t h e t r i a l recorder. reminded This Landrum after this would reasonable Hardeman's court, i s rights i s supported the court's motion court made statement to at by statement, the r e m i n d e r would have appeared i n the statement. trial or i.e.,a reminded Landrum of h i s M i r a n d a on h i s t a p e with Detective rights a statement i n the context met the Miranda that and d i d not first However, useless when he stated of Landrum Instead, of h i s Miranda after before with o f J u n e 6, 2 0 0 7 . Detective the afternoon D e t e c t i v e Hardeman reminder of Miranda warnings a On r e m i n d e d L a n d r u m t h a t he h a d r e a d know i f he after him. Hardeman to the k i l l i n g . L a n d r u m on t h e a f t e r n o o n Hardeman with That this determination i s supported by the the conclusion the on the suppress: 25 of hearing 1090119 "[THE COURT]: So, i f a p e r s o n i s p r o p e r l y j u v e n i l e Mirandized, refuses to give a statement unless one o f h i s p a r e n t s i s t h e r e , t h e y w a i t , parent comes, statement i s taken on the early m o r n i n g o f t h e 4 t h . And t h e n a t sometime t h e r e a f t e r , word i s r e c e i v e d t h a t [Landrum] wants t o a g a i n t a l k t o t h e p o l i c e . T h e y go b a c k a n d i n q u i r e a s do y o u r e m e m b e r t h e r i g h t s I r e a d y o u b e f o r e . Y e s . Do y o u s t i l l w a n t t o t a l k t o me o r w o r d s t o t h a t e f f e c t . Y e s . A n d a s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t was t a k e n . So, I g u e s s t h e l e g a l p r o p o s i t i o n i s what p e r i o d o f t i m e f o r a j u v e n i l e has t o l a p s e b e f o r e i t ' s n e c e s s a r y t o r e Mirandize them and have them sign waivers, et cetera." Since the tape-recorded statement Hardeman's reminder regarding does not c o n t a i n D e t e c t i v e the Miranda D e t e c t i v e Hardeman a p p a r e n t l y r e m i n d e d rights before turning on h i s tape warning, then Landrum o f h i s M i r a n d a recorder and taking his statement. Based that on t h e t o t a l i t y Landrum's Miranda o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we warnings were not s t a l e t o D e t e c t i v e H a r d e m a n on J u n e 6, 2 0 0 7 . Miranda rights originally to on June read t o him. make a s t a t e m e n t police Landrum station. was reinitiated first 4, Pursuant until one Although read 2007, his when to those hours rights, those spoke rights rights, elapsed i t was c o n t a c t w i t h t h e same o f f i c e r 26 when he Landrum u n d e r s t o o d h i s of h i s parents 60 conclude who he r e f u s e d arrived from were at the the time Landrum that had originally 1090119 interviewed location city him of 4, 2007. There 3 was from the p o l i c e and to reminded June the i n t e r v i e w s jail, changed on original an of Landrum's admission his that Miranda he the c o e r c i v e n e s s inherent Based Court on the of C r i m i n a l foregoing, We cannot affirm the i n the to the involvement Landrum say that to protect in a custodial we of involved. M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s b e c a m e so s t a l e a s t o f a i l from department denial was rights. a change was the Landrum interrogation. judgment of the Appeals. AFFIRMED. Cobb, and C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Parker, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , concurs i n the result. The present case i s distinguishable from Ex parte W i l l i a m s , 31 So. 3d 670 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t , who h a d i n v o k e d h i s F i f t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t t o c o u n s e l d u r i n g i n t e r r o g a t i o n , had r a i s e d t h e i s s u e whether a third party c o u l d i n i t i a t e f u r t h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e p o l i c e . 3 27

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.