Opinion ID: 2101401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Were the statements given voluntarily?

Text: In the landmark juvenile rights case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the Court admonished that the greatest care must be taken to assure that the [minor's] admission was voluntary. Id. at 55, 87 S.Ct. at 1458. Defendant argues that her waiver was not voluntary because she was led to believe that if she cooperated with the police she would not be arrested. Defendant asserts that her return the second day was an act of concerned cooperation indicative of her belief that cooperation would avoid arrest. She claims that Officer McFarlane promised immunity and threatened arrest and that she was thereby improperly tricked into waiving her rights. The juvenile in Fare made a similar allegation that the police made threats or promises during the interrogation to pressure him into cooperating in the hope of obtaining leniency for his cooperative attitude. 442 U.S. at 727, 99 S.Ct. at 2573. But the Court held this claim to be without merit because: The officers did not intimidate or threaten in any way. Their questioning was restrained and free from the abuses that so concerned the Court in Miranda. The police did indeed indicate that a cooperative attitude would be to respondent's benefit, but their remarks in this regard were far from threatening or coercive. Id. (citations omitted). The identical circumstance is presented here. There is no evidence of even subtle psychological coercion by the officers. Indeed, in response to a question on direct examination at the omnibus hearing defendant said that she would have cooperated with the officers in the same manner even if she though she would be arrested. The leading case in Minnesota with regard to this issue is State v. Biron, 266 Minn. 272, 123 N.W.2d 392 (1963). But the circumstances in Biron were extreme. The juvenile had been expressly told that he would have his case brought in juvenile court if he cooperated and that if he did not the officers would not even seek juvenile court proceedings. A case that is closer on its facts to this case is State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99 (Minn.1978), which framed the question as established in Biron to be whether the detectives' statements to defendant amount to `persuasive arguments calculated to induce a confession.' Id. at 107. The detectives in Merrill made no implied or actual promises to the defendant, so even though he may have concluded that he would be charged with a lesser offense, these circumstances were insufficient to negate a valid waiver. In the instant case, no implied or actual promises were made and none of the circumstances of the arrest rise to the level of sufficient coercion to negate a waiver of defendant's Miranda rights. There was no basis at all for her belief that she would gain immunity if she cooperated.