Opinion ID: 526041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did petitioner effectively invoke the privilege against

Text: SELF-INCRIMINATION 43 The statement by petitioner was made in the context of a precustodial interrogation of a suspect in a criminal investigation. The police had already questioned petitioner at his home on the day of the crime. Three days later, after learning that his friends had been questioned and being told that he was a suspect in the crime, two uniformed state troopers returned to petitioner's home for further questioning. Petitioner appeared to be nervous, pacing back and forth and walking away from the troopers. The trooper who wrote down petitioner's statement acknowledged that he and the other trooper went to Coppola's residence to elicit a confession and that he understood the statement to mean that Coppola did not want to confess. 44 In response to the state trooper's questions, petitioner stated: Let me tell you something. I'm not one of your country bumpkins. I grew up on the streets of Providence, Rhode Island and if you think I'm going to confess to you, you're crazy. As we read the statement, Coppola was telling the state police two things: that he was not going to confess; and that he knew he had a right not to incriminate himself. We agree with the New Hampshire court that petitioner was boasting of his sophistication in the ways of criminal interrogations. Coppola, in effect, told the police that he knew they were looking for a confession and that he knew from street experience that he had the right not to say anything that would incriminate him. That the words used were boastful and arrogant does not change their plain meaning. 45 We think it significant that immediately after making the statement and being told by the trooper that I just want to give you your rights and then talk to you, petitioner said that he would not talk to the police without a lawyer. This shows that petitioner, presumably on the basis of his street smarts, knew that he had a right to be represented by counsel at any interrogation. 46 We find, contrary to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, that petitioner's statement invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. The next issue is its admissibility. 47