Opinion ID: 4563601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ramos agreed to be questioned

Text: When the inspectors arrested Ramos, they warned him of his right to remain silent. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). But he validly waived that right and at first agreed to answer questions. (Ramos does not dispute that his waiver was valid.) The inspector asked him if he knew why he was being questioned, and Ramos nodded “yes.” App. 255. When the inspector asked whether he was the “only one involved with receiving cocaine from Puerto Rico,” Ramos gestured toward his co-tenants. But when the inspector asked Ramos to say more about them, Ramos declined, saying: “How do I know you’ll take care of me[?]” App. 285. Soon, Ramos thought better of speaking with the police, so he ended the interview. B. The government’s comments about his questioning were constitutional At trial, the government discussed the questioning. His answers were suspicious, it argued, because when Ramos implicated his co-tenants, he never denied his own guilt. Ramos did not object at trial. But now he claims that, by mentioning his omission, the government wrongly penalized him for invoking his right to remain silent. Not so. To be sure, Ramos had the right to remain silent. U.S. Const. amend. V; Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467–68. And once he exercised that right, the Government could not cite his silence as evidence of guilt. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976). But that is not what 5 happened. Ramos waived his right to remain silent. The Government’s theory was that when he did speak, his answers were suspiciously incomplete, not denying guilt. Prosecutors may make that argument. “[A] defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain silent.” Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408 (1980). So mentioning that a defendant “omit[ted] facts” is not punishing him for staying silent. Id. at 409. Thus, prosecutors may comment on “the substance and limited nature of what [a defendant] did say.” Rolan v. Coleman, 680 F.3d 311, 326 (3d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). That is all the Government did. Its theory was that when the inspector asked if Ramos was “the only one involved in this cocaine trafficking operation,” “[h]e didn’t deny being a part of the operation.” App. 390 (government’s closing statement); accord App. 289 (redirect examination of inspector). Because the Government commented on his statement, not his silence, its comments were proper.