Opinion ID: 2792128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Due Process Challenge

Text: Myers has asserted that his due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was violated when the prosecutor’s closing arguments and testimony at trial 1 Although this Court has previously recognized that “a person experiencing a psychotic delusion may appear normal to passersby,” and this may limit the probative value of demeanor evidence, Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 713-14, that does not mean that behavior observed before, after, or during the offense can never support a reasonable inference that the defendant was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct at the time of the offense. 11 both discussed his invocation of his right to remain silent and to an attorney. However, before addressing whether the testimony and closing remarks were made in error, we must reiterate that, “[i]nvocation of the Miranda right to counsel requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney.” Taylor v. State, 689 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind. 1997) (citing Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994)). “It is not enough that the defendant might be invoking his rights; the request must be unambiguous.” Taylor, 689 N.E.2d at 703. Here, the testimony in the record is distorted and confusing regarding the circumstances under which Myers allegedly invoked his right to counsel. Wininger provided the only testimony recounting Myers’ invocation of his rights, and she seemed unsure whether Myers requested an attorney or whether she asked him if he wanted an attorney. 2 Wininger also testified that Myers wanted an attorney so he could sue the police for shooting at him, and not for the purposes of defending him against possible criminal charges. As such, Myers’ statements do not appear to 2 Wininger was asked, “there came a point during that time that he wanted a lawyer, isn’t that correct?” and she responded, “Yes.” (Tr. at 470.) Shortly after this question, the Court attempted to clarify Wininger’s testimony about this: COURT: Did you ask your son if he wanted to have an attorney? ANSWER: Probably. COURT: Or did he tell you I want an attorney? ANSWER: I asked him, I asked him because he didn’t really know what was going on at all. Until here recently he thought it was all charges against . . . COURT: It’s your testimony under oath that in a trial that you asked him if he wanted an attorney? ANSWER: Yes, that would be more like it.