Opinion ID: 771550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assertion of the Right to Remain Silent

Text: 36 Once a person in custody has invoked his right to remain silent, law enforcement officers must scrupulously honor his assertion of that right. United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 775 (8th Cir. 1997) (construing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975)). However, to invoke one's right to remain silent, one must unequivocally express his desire to remain silent. United States v. Al-Muqsit, 191 F.3d 928, 936 (8th Cir. 1999). An assertion of one's Miranda rights must be neither ambiguous nor equivocal. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994) (applying this standard in determining whether a suspect had invoked his right to counsel). To determine whether a defendant has unequivocally invoked the right to remain silent, the defendant's statements are considered as a whole. United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir. 1995). A denial of knowledge does not constitute an assertion of the right to remain silent. United States v. Turner, 551 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir. 1977). More specifically, even statements by a juvenile that he did not know the answer to a question put to him or that he could not, or would not, answer the question . . . [are] not assertions of his right to remain silent. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 727 (1979). 37 In this case, Simmons failed to unambiguously or unequivocally assert his right to remain silent. In its analysis, the Missouri Supreme Court relied in part on Knoll's trial testimony that Simmons had not sought to terminate the questioning. Yet Simmons focused the court's attention on the beginning of Simmons' videotaped statement where Knoll stated, During the time all of this [interrogation] has been going on, you first started off saying you didn't know nothing about this crime, and you didn't want to tell us anything. The Missouri Supreme Court found that, [r]ead in context, Detective Knoll's statement refers to Simmons' initial denial of involvement in the crime, not any assertion of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. State v. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d 165, 174 (Mo. 1997) (en banc). 38 We have reviewed the record and the videotaped interrogation, and we agree with the state court's assessment. Although Simmons' statements, as summarized by Knoll, are arguably susceptible to different interpretations, read in context, it is more plausible to interpret them as a denial of involvement than as an assertion of the right to remain silent. There has been no showing that Simmons ever clearly expressed his right to remain silent. Therefore, we find no error. 3 39