You are here: / RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

Tag Archive for: RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

, ,

PROSECUTION’S USE OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION; THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott (who adopted the dissent by Justice Garry in the Appellate Division), determined that the prosecution’s proof of defendant’s post-Miranda silence as he was being transported by the police violated defendant’s due process rights under the state constitution. The error, however, was deemed harmless because the court found there was no reasonable possibility the error contributed to defendant’s conviction. The defendant’s conviction was therefore upheld. The defendant acknowledged commission of the crimes (two murders) but raised the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense. The Court of Appeals held that evidence of defendant’s silence upon arrest, which apparently was aimed at disproving or calling into question the EED defense, did not contribute to the jury’s rejection of the EED defense. The opinion includes extensive discussions of the use of evidence of a defendant’s silence and the related violation of state constitutional rights, the EED proof requirements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Pavone, 2015 NY Slip Op 09315, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SILENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)

,

“Preamble” Read to Defendant Before the Miranda Warnings Neutralized the Effect of the Warnings—Defendant’s Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted because the “preamble” read to him before he waived his right to remain silent neutralized the effect of the Miranda warnings. “Before the defendant was read his Miranda rights, the detective investigator said to him (1) “if you agree to speak with us, you may, if you wish, explain what you did and what occurred at that date, time, and place,” (2) “[i]f . . . you have an alibi . . . and you want to tell us where you were, we will ask that you please give us as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with,” and (3) “[i]f you agree to speak to us and your version of the events of that day differs from what we have heard, you may, if you so choose, tell us your story.” Thus, a clear implication was conveyed to the defendant that he ought to speak to the detective investigator and the assistant district attorney present at the interview in order to set forth his version of events so that they could be investigated. As such, the preamble here … rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights …”. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 04517, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Cross-Examination About the Omission of Exculpatory Information from a Statement Made to Police Is Not the Same as Cross-Examination About the Exercise of the Right to Remain Silent

The First Department noted that defendant was properly cross-examined about the omission of exculpatory information provided in his direct testimony from the statement he had given to police. “After receiving Miranda warnings, and agreeing to provide a statement to the police, defendant made statements that omitted significant exculpatory matter that he included in his trial testimony. Under the circumstances, this was an unnatural omission, and a permissible basis for impeachment…”.  People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 03469, 1st Dept, 4-28-15

 

,

Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury was allowed to hear a recording in which defendant refused to waive his right to remain silent and invoked his right to counsel. Under the facts, the error was not harmless. The Third Department directed that the portion of the recording which recounts defendant’s criminal history be redacted on retrial:

….[D]efendant is entitled to a new trial. During their case-in-chief, the People generally cannot introduce evidence that a defendant invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent or to obtain counsel … . At the trial here, the People played the recording of the police interview up to and including the portion in which defendant stated that he would not sign the line of the Miranda form indicating his willingness to speak to the detective, and defendant stated, “Let me have a lawyer.” This was improper because “it creates a prejudicial inference of consciousness of guilt” by letting the jury hear defendant invoke his constitutional rights … . People v Carey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00251, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Evidence of Defendant’s Silence at the Time of Arrest Should Not Have Been Allowed—New Trial Ordered

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because evidence of defendant’s silence at the time of arrest was erroneously allowed:

Absent “unusual circumstances,” evidence of a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest is generally inadmissible under common-law evidentiary principles … . And the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings has been deemed impermissible as a matter of due process … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that defendant did not open the door to evidence of his post-Miranda silence and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in permitting its introduction at trial. Nor can the error be viewed as harmless in this case.  People v Hill, 2014 NY Slip OP 07925, CtApp 11-18-14

 

Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent Was Harmless Error—Elements of “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Defense to Murder Explained

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that the error in eliciting testimony, in violation of defendant’s post-Miranda right to remain silent, about defendant’s failure to apprise law enforcement that he shot the victims while under extreme emotional disturbance, was harmless error.  The decision includes a detailed discussed of the relevant criteria for “extreme emotional disturbance:”

As the Court of Appeals has instructed, the extreme emotional disturbance defense is comprised of both subjective and objective elements. “The subjective element focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance” …, i.e., “that the [defendant’s]; claimed explanation as to the cause of his [or her]; action [was]; not contrived or [a]; sham” … . This subjective element is “generally associated with a loss of self-control” … . The objective element, in turn, “requires proof of a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance . . . [, which]; must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been, and assessing from that standpoint whether the explanation or excuse for [the]; emotional disturbance was reasonable” … .

To be sure, the extreme emotional disturbance defense “is significantly broader in scope than the ‘heat of passion’ doctrine [that]; it replaced” … and, for that reason, the “[a];ction[s]; influenced by [such defense]; need not be spontaneous” … . “‘Rather, it may be that a significant mental trauma has affected a defendant’s mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then inexplicably coming to the fore'” … . That said, evidence demonstrating a defendant’s “high degree of self-control” … , as well as any “postcrime conduct . . . suggest[ing]; . . . that [the defendant]; was in full command of his [or her]; faculties and had consciousness of guilt” … , is entirely inconsistent with an extreme emotional disturbance defense.  People v Pavone, 2014 NY Slip Op 03881, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

,

Reversible Error to Allow Prosecutor to Question Defendant About His Post-Arrest Silence

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor questioned him about his post-arrest silence:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to question the defendant about his post-arrest silence. Generally, a defendant’s post-arrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes … . Further, ” an individual’s pretrial failure to speak when confronted by law enforcement officials is of extremely limited probative worth’ while the risk of prejudice is substantial'” … .

Here, over defense counsel’s objection, the prosecutor was permitted to impeach the defendant’s testimony with his failure to offer an exculpatory version of the events to the police. Although the defendant initially responded to certain questions asked by the police, he then invoked his right to remain silent and offered no information “narrat[ing] the essential facts of his involvement in the crime” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in allowing the prosecutor to pursue this line of inquiry… . People v Theodore, 2014 Slip Op 00246, 2nd Dept 1-15-14

 

(Harmless) Error for Prosecutor to Ask If Other Witnesses’ Testimony Was Untrue and to Ask About Defendant’s Silence Upon Apprehension

The Second Department noted that it was error for the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether testimony which contradicted defendant’s was untrue, and to ask about his silence after he was apprehended. The errors were deemed harmless, however:

The defendant correctly contends that the prosecutor improperly asked him on cross-examination whether a prosecution witness’s testimony was “not true” because it contradicted the defendant’s recollection of events… . We also agree with the defendant that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about his silence when he was apprehended by the police …. However, under the facts of this case, the errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial … . Indeed, with respect to the questions concerning the defendant’s silence after being apprehended, the trial court alleviated any prejudice by sustaining defense counsel’s objections to the two offending questions, striking the second question and answer from the record, and directing the jury to disregard the second question and answer. People v Cosme, 2013 NY Slip Op 07057, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police; Error to Comment on Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence (Harmless However)

The First Department determined it was error for County Court to have allowed the prosecutor to impeach defendant with his failure to present to the police an exculpatory version of events and to allow the prosecutor to comment upon defendant’s post-arrest silence:

County Court erred in allowing the prosecution, over the defendant’s objection, to impeach the defendant’s testimony with his failure to come forward to the police with an exculpatory version of the events, and in allowing the People to comment upon the defendant’s post-arrest silence in summation ….  People v Copp, 2013 NY Slip Op 04619, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

,

Gang Affiliation and Prior Drug Offenses Admissible Under Molineux in Murder Case/Motion to Suppress Statement Made When Questioning Continued After Defendant Stated He Did Not Want to Answer Any More Questions Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation and uncharged drug offenses were admissible in defendant’s murder trial under Molineux.  In addition, the Third Department determined defendant’s statements made after he said he didn’t want to answer any more questions should have been suppressed.  [The Third Department rejected the People’s argument that the suppression issue was decided in a prior prosecution and the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply.] With respect to the Molineux and “right to remain silent” issues, the Court wrote:

“Generally speaking, evidence of uncharged  crimes or prior bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions – motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity – or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provide[s] necessary background or complete[s] a witness’s narrative” … . Here, defendant’s drug-related activities and purported gang membership provided necessary background information, explained how [the other parties] and defendant knew one another (as well as why defendant’s acquaintances went along with his plan to rob the weed spot[where the murder took place]) and, viewed in the context of the activities that occurred prior to the shooting, established both defendant’s awareness of the weed spot and a motive for the shooting; thus, such “evidence was highly probative of several relevant and material issues at trial and genuinely interwoven with the facts surrounding the shooting” … .

The case law makes clear that “[a] defendant’s invocation of the right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored” … once the right is asserted in an “unequivocal and unqualified” fashion … Whether  a defendant’s  request in this regard is “unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to  the  circumstances surrounding  the  request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” … .  People v Johnson, 104081, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy