Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1111- 08

W ESL EY C H A R LE S JO SEP H , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

BEX AR CO UNTY C OCHRAN , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h P RI CE , J OHNS ON and H OL C OM B , J J ., j oi ne d. OP I NI ON I j oi n t he opi ni on of t he C o u rt b ec au s e I agr ee thatt he t r i al coul d concl ude t hatt he St at e pr oved, bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , t hatappel l antknow i ngl y , i nt el l i g e n t l y , and

vo l un t ari l yw ai ved his Mi r anda rig h ts b e f o re m a k in g a r e c o r d e d sta tem e n t. I w rite 1

se p a ra tely to n o te a risin g tre n d in w h ich T e x a s la w -e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e r s f a il t o e x p licitly ask a suspect i f he is w i l l i ng t o g i ve u p h i s Mi r anda r i ght s and spea k t o t hem. T hi s ques t i on,J oseph Concurring O pinion Page2

Id . at 47 9; Moran v. Burbine , 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). 2 Colorad o v . Co nn e lly , 479 U.S. 157, 168 (1986). 3 North C arolina v. Butler , 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979). 4 Id. at3 7 3 (qu o t i n g Miranda , 384 U.S. at 475). 5 United States v. Porter , 7 6 4 F. 2 d 1 , 7 (1 C i r. 1 9 8 5 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Christian , 6 s t 571 F.2d 64, 68 ( 1 Cir. 1978)). st if a n sw e re d a f

f irm a tiv e ly , res u lts in a n e x p re ss w a iv e r . T h e f a ilu re to a sk o n e a d d iti o n a l, sim p le q u e stio n h a s d r a m a tica llyin c re a se d trial a n d a p p e llate lit ig a tio n a n d n e e d les sly je o p a rd iz e s th e a d m is s ib ility o f a s u s p e c t’ s s u b s e q u e n tly o b ta in e d s ta te m e n t. A l t ho ug h i t i s w el l est abli shed that a suspect m ayvali dlyw ai ve h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s, t he St at e mustpr ove t hat t he r equi r ed w ar ni ngs have be en gi ven and thatt he s us pect know i ngl y , intell igent l y , and vol unt ar i l yw ai ved t hos e r i ght s . T he St at e mustpr ove t hat 2

w ai ver bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence

. W hen pol i ce obt ai n an expr es s w ai ver–ei t her 3

w ri tt en o r ora l–f

rom th e s u s p ec t, the S tat e’s task is no t so d ifficu lt , b u t “t h e p rose cu ti o n ’s bu rden i s great ” w hen t he w ai ver i s not express
. 4 I n N or t h C ar ol i na v. B ut l er , t he Supr eme C our t s t at ed t hat “a val i d w ai ver w i l l not be pr es um ed s i m pl y fr om t he s i l ence of t he ac cus ed af t erw ar ni ngs ar e gi ven ors i m pl yfr om t he f a c t th a t a c o n f

e s s io n w a s in f

a c t e v e n tu a lly o b ta in e d .” 5 M er el yas ki ng t he a cc u sed w het herhe under s t ood hi s r i ght s does not s at i s fy t he dut i es of an i nt er r ogat i ng offi ceror m ake a nys t at ement t he ac cus ed mi ght th e n m a k e a d m is s ib le

. Mi r anda r equi r es t he i nt er r ogat i ng offi cer t o go fur t her and make s ur e t hatt he ac cus ed, k n o w ing hi s r i ght s , vol unt ar i l yr el i nqui s hes t h e m. 6J oseph Concurring O pinion Page3

Bu i v . D iPao lo , 170 F.3d 232, 240 ( 1 Cir. 1999). 7 s t Butler , 441 U.S. at 373. 8 Id. 9 See id. at 37 5- 76 (e xplic it w a ive r n ot n e c e ssa ry to s ho w d e fe nd ant w a ive d right t o 10 re ma in s ile nt b e c a

us e de fe nd ant v olu

nte e re d in c ri min atin gstate me nts ); Bu i v . D iPao lo , 170 F.3d at 23 8 ( va lid

waive r p ro pe rl y

inf e rre d b e c a

us e de fe nd ant re sp on de d s e le c tiv e ly to q ue sti on s, a sking , “ Who sa id I

did thi s?” a ft e r a

ns we ri ng“ no ” to p ri or

qu e sti on ); United States v. Ramire z , 7 9 F. 3 d 2 9 8 , 3 0 5 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( v al i d

wa i v er p ro p er l y i n fe rr edb ec au s e, af

t er re ce i v i n g Miranda war nings a nd agree ing to spe ak with offic ers, de fenda nt answer ed some que stions and not oth e rs ); Flam e r v . D e law are , 68 F.3d 710, 719- 20 (3d Cir. 1995) (w aiver of Miranda va lid beca use def endant ne ver invoke d his rights, told police heknew his rights, and answe red qu e sti on s) ; Burket v . Angelone, 208 F.3d 172, 198 ( 4th Cir. 2002) (valid wa iver prope rly inferred beca use def endant wa s g iven Miranda rights a second time, sa id he under stood rights, a nd ini tiate d c onve rs atio n w ithde te c tiv e ); So ffa r v . Co c k

re ll , 300 F.3d 588, 592 ( 5th Cir. 2002) (en ba nc ) (va lid waive r p ro pe rl y

inf e rre d b e c a

us e de fe nd ant, un de rs tand ingthec on se qu e nc e s, continued to volunteer

information af

ter repeate d Miranda wa

rn ing s) ; Seym our v. W

alker , 224 F .3 d 5 42 , 5 54 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) (w a ive r v a lid be c a us e de fe nd ant “ a c kn ow le dg e d s hewo uld ta lk wi th”sh e ri ff

and tol d h im that sh e did

no t w ant c ouns e l, e ve n th ou gh s he ri ff faile d to ob ta in e xpre ss wri tte n o r o ral w a ive r a nd waive r f or ms w e reava ila

ble ); United States v. J

ackson , 300 H ow ever , “an e xpr es s s t at em en t is not i nvar i abl ynece s s ar yt o s uppor t a fi ndi ng t hatt he d e f e n d a n t wa i v e d e i t h e r t h e r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t o r t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l

. ” Un d e r s o me 7 ci r cumst ance s , i f a s us pect has been ful l y w ar ned of hi s r i ght s and has i nd icated that he under s t ands t hos e r i ght s , a cour s e of c onductcons i s t entw i t h w ai ver“may ” s uppor t t he

con cl usi on t hat the suspe ct has w ai ved his Mi r anda ri g h ts. H o w ev er, 8 [t ] he cour t s m us t pr es um e t hata def endantdi d not w ai ve hi s r i ght s ; t he p ro se c u tio n ’s b u rd e n is g re a t; b u t a t lea st in so m e c a se s w a iv e r c a n b e c lea rly i nferr ed fr om t he ac t i ons and w or ds of t he per s on i nt er r ogat ed. 9 T hati s , t he dec k i s s t acke d agai ns t t he fi ndi ng of an i m p li citw ai ver , but t he St at e may , at l eas t i n s om e cas es , s how t hat a w ai ver can be cl ear l yi nferr ed fr om t he s us pect ’ s w or ds and
act i ons aft erhavi ng been w ar ned. W i t h an expr es s w ai ver , t he s i t uat i on i s r ever s ed: t he 10J oseph Concurring O pinion Page4

F .3 d 7 40 , 7 48 (7 th C ir . 2 00 2) (w a ive r v a lid de sp itelos s o f w a ive r f

or m) ; Owens v. Bowersox , 29 0 F .3 d 9 60 , 9 63 -6 4 ( 8th Cir . 2 00 2) (w a ive r v a lid

be c a us e de fe nd ant i ns tr

uc te d mo the r t o te ll po lic e hewi sh e d to sp e ak w iththe m and late r c on fi rm e d h is w ish

to p oli c e ); United States v. Duque , 62 F.3d 1146, 1148, 1152- 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (va lid waiver properly inferred bec ause, afte r def endant r ece ived Miranda ri ghts and wa s a sk e d if

hewa s “ of

a min d”to s pe ak w ith of fi c e rs , h e ma deinc ri min atin gstate me nts ); Un ite d S tates v . Yazz ie , 1 88 F .3 d 1 17 8, 11 92 (1 0th Cir. 1999) (valid wa iver prope rly inferred bec ause de fenda nt refuse d to sign waiver, but indicate d wi lli ngne ss t o te ll h is s ideof thesto ry ); Mince y v. H ead, 206 F.3d 1106, 1131- 32 (11th Cir. 2000) (valid wa iver prope rly inferred eve n though de fenda nt refuse d to sign waiver be causehe “dre w a sha

rp distinction between what he wa s willing to say and what he was w illing to sign” ). deck i s st acked i n fav or of a findi ng of w ai ver, bu t t he suspe ct m ay , at l easti n som e cases, show t hat he di d n ot know i ng l y , i ntel l i gen t l y , or volunt ari l yw ai ve h i s Mi r anda ri g h ts
. W h ile th e m a

jo rityis c o rre c t in sta tin g th a t an e x p licit w a iv e r is n o t in v a ria b ly

nece s s ar y , I do not r ead N or t h C ar ol i na v. B ut l ert o h old t hat i t i s neve rnece s s ar y . T he fa ct t hata p o li ce offi cerfai l ed t o as k t he s us pecti f he w as w i l l i ng t o w ai ve hi s r i ght s and gi ve

a s t a t e m e n t d o e s n o t a u g u r w e l l f o r a l a t e r j u d i c i a l f

i n d i n g t h a t t h e s u s p e c t d i d k n o w i n g l y, i ntel l i gen t l y , and vo l un t ari l yw ai ve h i s Mi r anda r i ght s . T her e maybe manyr eas ons w hyan

o f f ice r fa iled to a sk th a t q u e stio n : in so m e in sta n c e s, th e su sp e c t m a yb e in su c h a ru sh to tell h i s s i d e o f

t h e s t o r y t h a t h e b e g i n s t o s p e a k b e f o r e t h e o f

f i c e r c a n a s k t h a t q u e s t i o n ; i n s o me i ns t ance s , how ever , t hat fai l ur e m ay be t he r es ul t of poor t r ai ni ng, i nexper i ence , or fea r t hat
t he suspe ct–if as ked –w i l l decli ne to w a i ve h i s r i gh t s. T hese l at t er r easons m i gh t w el l cast d o u b t u p o n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n i m p l i e d w a i v e r , a n d t h e y c a l l f o r c l o s e j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y. T he det er m i nat i on m ade byt he t r i al j udge i n t hi s cas e–t hatappel l antm ade a n i m pl i ed

w ai ver of h i s Mi r anda r i ght s befor e gi vi ng hi s s t at ement t o D et ect i ve W al s h– depende d upon th e “ to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s,” a n d h e re th o se c irc u m sta n c e s su p p o rt a f in d in g (if

o n lyJ oseph Concurring O pinion Page5

j us t bar el y ) t hat a val i d w ai ver di d occur . T hi s i s a verycl os e ca s e, and had the t r i al j udge fou nd t hat appell a n t d id no t kn ow i ng l y , i ntel l i gen t l y , and vo l un t ari l yw ai ve h i s Mi r anda

r i ght s befor e s peaki ng w i t h D et ect i ve W al s h, w e w oul d have undoubted ly u phel d t hat det er m i nat i on as w el l

. T hus , l aw - enfor cement offi cer s ar e w el l advi s ed t o expr es s l yas k a suspect t o w ai ve h i s Mi r anda r i ght s s o as t o avoi d l at er , pr ot r act ed l i t i gat i on and t he veryr eal pos s i bi l i t yt hata s us pect ’ s s t at ement m us t be exc l uded bec ause the t ot al i t yof t he circu m stan ce s are insu ff ici en t to m ee t the S tat e’s “ h ea v yb u rde n ” to s h o w an im p li ed w aive r. W i t h t hes e comm ent s , I j oi n t he maj or i t yopi ni on.

Fi l ed: Febr uar y24, 2010 P ub l i sh