Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D and a companion shot and killed Donald Walker during a hunting trip in Colorado. ATF agents learned that D was engaged in the interstate transportation of stolen firearms. The informant also told the agents that D had discussed his participation in the Colorado killing. Walker's body had not been found, and the police had received no report of his disappearance. ATF agents arrested D in Kansas City, Missouri, during an undercover purchase. D was advised of his Miranda rights twice. The agents also advised D that he had the right to stop the questioning at any time or to stop the questioning until the presence of an attorney could be secured. D then signed a written form stating that he understood and waived his rights and that he was willing to make a statement and answer questions. The agents asked D whether he had shot a man named Walker in Colorado and thrown his body into a snow bank. D said no. Colorado law enforcement officials visited D and gave Miranda warnings. D again signed a written form indicating that he understood his rights and was willing to waive them. D confessed to the Colorado murder. The officers prepared a written statement summarizing the interview. D read, edited, and signed the statement. D was charged with first-degree murder. D moved to suppress both statements on the ground that his waiver of Miranda rights was invalid. The trial court found that the ATF agents' failure to inform D before the March 30 interview that they would question him about the Colorado murder did not affect his waiver of his Miranda rights. It concluded that the March 30 statement should not be suppressed on Fifth Amendment grounds. The trial court, however, subsequently ruled that D's statement that he 'shot another guy once' was irrelevant and that the context of the discussion did not support the inference that the statement related to the Walker homicide. The court concluded that the May 26 statement 'was made freely, voluntarily, and intelligently after D had been properly and fully advised of his rights and that the statement should not be suppressed, but should be admitted in evidence. D was convicted of first-degree murder. On appeal, D argued that the May 26 statement that was admitted against him was the illegal 'fruit' of the March 30 statement. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed. The ATF agents 'had a duty to inform D that he was a suspect, or to re-advise him of his Miranda rights, before questioning him about the murder.' The March 30 statement was inadmissible and that the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that the May 26 statement was not the product of the prior illegal statement. The court reversed Spring's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co