by Soma Sengupta
Willi Adames was convicted after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his written and videotaped statements, which he argued were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Mr. Adames had been repeatedly read his Miranda rights and had affirmatively waived them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed and ordered a new trial, finding that the People had failed to prove that Mr. Adames made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights, given his age, illiteracy, unfamiliarity with the criminal justice system, and his express confusion regarding his rights.
The Appellate Division relied upon Mr. Adames’ later videotaped statement with an assistant district attorney to suppress his prior oral and written statements to the officers, who testified that Mr. Adames understood his Miranda warnings and waiver, “never asked for an attorney” and could not recall if Mr. Adames had ever expressed any interest in speaking with the “[D]istrict [A]ttorney.”. Approximately five hours after giving his written statement, Mr. Adames was questioned by Assistant District Attorney Tara Elliot in a videotaped interview. ADA Elliott began by introducing herself as a “[D]istrict [A]ttorney” and stating, “I understand that you wanted to speak to me right?” to which defendant replied, “Yes, Miss.” The colloquy below followed:
“ADA: You have a right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police or me and have an attorney present during any questioning. Do you understand that?
“DEFENDANT: No. I want [sic] have a couple of questions.
“ADA: Go ahead. What’s your question?
“DEFENDANT: I want my question privates [sic] though. It’s gotta be me and you. If it’s okay.
“ADA: Uh. Well. Okay. If you want to — I mean I’m here because you wanted to speak with me, right? And so I’m happy to answer any questions that you have. That’s part of the reason why I’m here. My understanding is you might have some questions for me. These questions that I have for you are different. These are — you’ve already been asked these questions.
“DEFENDANT: Oh yeah.
“ADA: So I’m only — I want to just make sure that you understand.
“DEFENDANT: Yes.
“ADA: The — you know — your rights basically.
“DEFENDANT: Yes.
“ADA: So — do you — do you understand that you have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police or me? Do you — do you understand that?
“DEFENDANT: What does that mean?
“ADA: That means that — I know you asked to speak with me and I’m here. I’m here now to speak with you.
“DEFENDANT: Okay.
“ADA: But you have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police or me.
“DEFENDANT: What’s an attorney is you [sic]. What’s an attorney.
“ADA: I am an attorney.
“DEFENDANT: Okay.
“ADA: But you have the right to speak to a different attorney. Your own attorney if you would like before you speak to me.
“DEFENDANT: I can do that?
“ADA: You can do that.
“DEFENDANT: There’s another one here?
“ADA: There is not another one here. The — the — practically speaking, if you want to speak to an attorney before speaking to me we are not going to be able to have a conversation. We’re not going to be able to talk now.
“DEFENDANT: Oh. Okay. So let’s talk now. Let’s — to see if I could . . .
“ADA: But do you understand that —
“DEFENDANT: Yes miss.
“ADA: Okay. Do you — do you want an attorney now or do you not want an attorney now and you would like to speak with me?
“DEFENDANT: No I will speak with you. It’s alright.
“ADA: Okay. Now if you can’t afford one do you understand that one would be provided for you?
“DEFENDANT: Oh. Okay.
“ADA: So you’re obviously. You asked to speak with me so I assume that you have some questions for me. Right? You have questions for me?
“DEFENDANT: No. It’s okay. Go ahead answer [sic] your questions first.”
The Court found that Mr. Adames “did not understand the “immediate import” of the Miranda warnings, especially when considering the video statement which established defendant did not understand the word “attorney” nor his right to consult an attorney before questioning” and that “[i]n light of our finding that defendant did not understand his right to counsel immediately before the video statement, it follows that defendant’s previous statements made at the police precinct are also suppressed.”
The Court noted the response of “no” to ADA Elliott’s question “[y]ou have a right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police or me and have an attorney present during any questioning. Do you understand that?” and found that Mr. Adames’ “request to speak in private, immediately after expressing that he did not understand his right, indicates defendant’s belief that the Assistant District Attorney was his counsel.” Moreover, the Court noted that Mr. Adames’ confusion was further demonstrated by Mr. Adames’ question “what’s an attorney” when offered one and ADA Elliott response “I am an attorney”.
The court opined that “it is not clear that this 18-year-old defendant with no prior criminal history, who could not read or write, ever understood his right to counsel nor the consequences of waiver” when he asked Assistant District Attorney Tara Elliot during the video statement the meaning of the word “attorney.” The court also found that Mr. Adames did not understand his right to counsel when he revealed his “belief that the Assistant District Attorney was his counsel” upon asking to speak with her in private. This confusion required reversal where the ADA’s “answer to the defendant’s questions failed to clarify his understanding of the right to counsel.” Moreover, under the facts of the case, the Court also determined that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Soma Sengupta's Law Posts 