Opinion ID: 1395415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Self-Incriminating Statements to Officers

Text: Finally, Gallardo contends that the district court erred in failing to suppress self-incriminating statements he made to officers in the absence of counsel. Gallardo made these statements only after signing a waiver of his Miranda rights.  Miranda holds that the defendant may waive effectuation of the rights conveyed in the warnings provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) (quotations and alterations omitted). The totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation guide the determination of whether a waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Id. (quotation omitted). Gallardo apparently concedes that he signed the waiver and answered subsequent questions voluntarily. He does, however, argue that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent. To make a knowing and intelligent waiver, the defendant must have full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Id. To support his argument, Gallardo points to the language barrier and officers' allegedly inadequate or misleading explanation of the significance of waiving those rights prior to their custodial interrogation of Gallardo. We agree that, in isolated instances, Gallardo showed confusion regarding the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Id. Looking to the totality of the circumstances, however, we believe the evidence supports the district court's conclusion that Gallardo knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. First, Gallardo signed a Miranda waiver form written in his native language. This fact alone carries significant weight in determining whether his waiver was knowing and intelligent. See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979) (An express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver. . . .). Further, Gallardo did not sign the form automatically or absent-mindedly; he asked questions about its significance, read it aloud twice, and waited for a Spanish-speaking ICE agent to arrive before agreeing to waive his rights. In short, he treated the waiver of his rights with appropriate caution. Finally, the ICE agent clarified the nature of those rights and the significance of their waiver for Gallardo. He told Gallardo that he could make no promises regarding leniency, that the sentencing decision was in the hands of the judge, that Gallardo would be subjecting himself to questions without an attorney, and if . . . we are doing questions and you don't want to answer any more without an attorney, then you say, `Listen, I don't want to answer more.' Gallardo then orally affirmed his desire to answer questions . . . without attorney. Given these facts, in their totality, we do not believe the district court erred in finding that Gallardo's Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent.