A suspect who has “[E]xpressed his desire to deal with police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversation with the police.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 677 (1988), quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 (1981).
State v. Madden
2022 – Ohio – 2638
First District Appellate Court
Hamilton County, Ohio
August 3, 2022
Mr. Keajzuan Madden was under investigation for an incident in which three men knocked on the door of a residence. When the victim opened the door, the men rushed inside. They held her at gunpoint and demanded money. Eventually, the men fled from the residence with the victim’s purse, approximately $1,500 in cash, and a cell phone. Mr. Madden was subsequently arrested.
He was interviewed at the police station by two detectives. That interview was recorded, and the video was admitted into evidence. Before starting the interview, the detectives read Mr. Madden his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966), and had him sign a written acknowledgement of those rights. Mr. Madden explained that he had come to Cincinnati from Mississippi to visit his wife. When the detectives began asking about the incident in question, Mr. Madden claimed that he had not been involved. After his continued denials, the detectives stated that they were going to interview other suspects. They then left him alone in the interview room for approximately fifty – five minutes.
The detectives then returned to the room and began interviewing Mr. Madden in a more aggressive manner. They told him that two of his alleged co- conspirators, his wife, and her cousin, had talked to them and had implicated Mr. Madden as the ringleader. One of the detectives stated, “If you want the whole thing, I’ll type it up and that’s what you’re going to get.” He added, “And when we go to court, I can say, this is who cooperated, to the judge, this is who manned up, and this is who didn’t man up.” Mr. Madden then asked to see a lawyer.
The detective then stated, “If that’s what you want to do. I mean, I would rather just get your side of the story.” Mr. Madden replied, “Uh huh,” and the detective asked, “You don’t want to tell me your side of the story.” Mr. Madden stated that he wanted to tell his side of the story, but with a lawyer present. The detective responded, “That’s fine. All right. I’ll type up the paperwork. You’re going to go to jail for aggravated robbery.” The detectives then stood up in unison and started to walk out of the room. Mr. Madden again said that he wanted to speak to a lawyer. The detectives told him that they did not have time to wait for a lawyer to come to talk to Mr. Madden. They said that they would charge him, and then he could have a lawyer appointed for him.
Mr. Madden then asked, “How many years is it for this or whatever?” One of the detectives told him that “[I]t’s the same charge as murder. That’s why we wanted to talk to you to get your side of the story.” The other detective added, “It’s a big charge.” The first detective asked him if he wanted to “[S]it there and think about it for a minute and I’ll come back and see you and see if you want to talk to me.” Mr. Madden replied, “Yeah.”
The detectives left the room for a few minutes. Upon reentering, the first detective stated, “Do you want an attorney or do you want to talk to us?” When Mr. Madden did not answer right away, the detectives told him that if Mr. Madden had an attorney, they would call the attorney. If not, he would go to the jail, and then he would get an attorney. They told him if he went to jail, he would see a judge the following day. The first detective added that if he wanted an attorney, that was his right, and if he wanted to talk, they would talk to him. Mr. Madden answered, “Alright.” The officer asked if he should sit down, Mr. Madden answered, “Yes.” He then confessed to his involvement in the robbery.
The parties do not dispute that the detectives read Mr. Madden his Miranda rights. In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court stated, “Therefore, the sole issue for the Court to decide is whether the Detectives interrogated Mr. Mr. Madden after he invoked his right to counsel. This court determines that they did.” We agree.
Analysis
The record shows that Mr. Madden unequivocally and unambiguously invoked his right to counsel. See State v. Carr, 1st Dist. Hamilton 2010-Ohio-2764. Nevertheless, the trial court found that the police asked him several times whether he wanted to talk to them, and stated that they wanted to talk to him, a finding supported by competent, credible evidence. Their statements were calculated to elicit an incriminating response by Mr. Madden. The detectives made numerous statements that went far beyond inquiries or statements relating to “routine incidents of the custodial relationship,” which do not generally “initiate” a conversation about the investigations. See Oregaon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045.
The state argues that after the detectives left the room the second time, telling him to “[T]hink about it,” Mr. Madden initiated the discussion about the investigation by asking what the penalty was for the offenses of which he was accused. But this question only occurred after he had asked for an attorney three times. The detectives continued to ask him to tell them his story and repeatedly told him about the severity of the charges. Further, it only occurred after the detectives said they did not have time to wait for him to talk to an attorney … In this case, Mr. Madden never indicated a willingness to discuss the robbery without an attorney present.
A suspect who has “[E]xpressed his desire to deal with police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversation with the police.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 677 (1988), quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 (1981).
The bright-line test set out by the United States Supreme Court was to prevent “[T]he police from wearing down and confusing the defendant to obtain a waiver of his rights.” State v. Knuckles, 65 Ohio St.3d 494, 496 (1992), citing Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 98 (1984). The video recording shows that was exactly what occurred in this case.
Holding
Consequently, we overrule the state’s assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Miranda was decided on Monday June 13, 1966. If just ONE vote went the other way, law enforcement would not be reciting Miranda today. This five – four vote is demonstrative as to how challenging law enforcement was then and is today – THE hardest job in America!
Lessons Learned:
- Once a suspect is provided a Miranda warning and the suspect requests an attorney, law enforcement must stop all questioning unless the suspect reinitiates. In this case when Mr. Madden asked “How many years is it for this or whatever?”, this was not a reinitiation of the dialogue, most especially given the context of his question.
- In this case the officers truly wanted to obtain a confession from Mr. Madden and ultimately did. However, once Mr. Madden requested an attorney the questioning should have stopped abruptly.
- For more on Miranda see: Miranda – Both a Noun and a Verb, Were Gary’s Self-Incriminating Statements Roadside during a Traffic Stop require the Miranda Warning?, Were the Detectives Required to Mirandize Justin the Sexual Predator, while he Lay in a Hospital Bed?, When Jeff Removed His Grill it Lead to a Traffic Violation but should his Statements be Suppressed as a Miranda Violation?, and Can a Suspect be Interviewed Without Miranda in a Mammoth Cave?.
Does your agency train on Custodial Interrogation?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!