Opinion ID: 1763774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: At trial, the State commented and adduced testimony about Brooks' post-Miranda silence

Text: Brooks alleges the trial court erred in allowing comments and testimony concerning Brooks' post- Miranda silence, which is prohibited under Doyle . The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that [n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The privilege against self-incrimination is safeguarded by the mandatory procedures set out by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). These procedures include the requirement that those in police custody be advised that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they may say can be used against them. Id. at 468-69, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Breaching the implied assurances of the Miranda warning is an affront to the fundamental fairness required by the Due Process Clause. Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 291, 106 S.Ct. 634, 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). In Doyle , based on that principle, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's post- Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach a defendant. 426 U.S. at 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240. The holding in Doyle rests on the view that it is fundamentally unfair to implicitly assure a person his silence will not be used against him and then breach that promise by using that silence against him. Wainwright, 474 U.S. at 291, 106 S.Ct. 634. Relying on Doyle 's notion of fundamental unfairness, Missouri's cases have held that post- Miranda silence cannot be used as evidence to incriminate a defendant. See State v. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d 332, 338 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing State v. Zindel, 918 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Frazier, 927 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Whitmore, 948 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. App.1997); State v. Martin, 797 S.W.2d 758 (Mo.App.1990)). Moreover, post- Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach a defendant's testimony. State v. Anderson, 79 S.W.3d 420, 441 (Mo. banc 2002). The State argues that Brooks waived all of his Doyle claims because he waived his silence when he told police that he had nothing to hide and didn't do nothing at all. However, statements to police must be substantive to waive the right to silence. Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408 n. 2, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980) (treating similar statements as not waiving the right to silence). A general denial of culpability, such as I didn't do nothing at all, does not waive the right to remain silent. State v. Crow, 728 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Mo.App.1987) (To waive his right to not have the State comment on the exercise of his right to silence, a defendant must make a statement obviously related to something, and then the waiver is only as to the subject matter of that statement). Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this case, it is clear that Brooks' Fifth Amendment right was violated and that he did not waive his Doyle claims. The multiple errors alleged by Brooks are as follows:
The first Doyle violation occurred during opening statements when the State told the jury that, at the station, after Brooks received the Miranda warning, he failed to explain what happened: So Mr. Brooks goes to the station, he is not under arrest, not handcuffed, he goes down to the station and Lieutenant Thomas meets him down there, and they take him into the interview room and there is a camera being digitally recorded both on the video and also sound, and, you know, the defendant knows that. They also tell him to make sure he knows so there is no secrets there, even though he wasn't under arrest ... they went ahead and read him his Miranda warnings ... And basically all they did was ask him what happened, what happened, Bob. He never would tell them. Not a word. I need to talk to somebody is what he said, or I need a phone book. They gave him a phone book. Then he needs a phone number. They gave him a phone number. Then they say we want your side of the story, you are not under arrest, you are free to go, open the door and you are free to walk out of here. Over and over and over. You will see them ask him and he just tellsthey didn't interrogate him like they do most people, they said just tell us what happened. Not a word. Never told them that he thought she was an intruder and accidentally shot her. He never told them anything. That's going to last close to an hour or so. And then finally, you know, finally he says I am done. At that point he is pretty well a suspect at that point, so they place him under arrest. And I will have to cut it off at that point because he invokes his rights, so at that point I got to turn it off. Brooks' objection was sustained, but his motion for a mistrial was overruled. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the prosecuting attorney's comments regarding Brooks' exercise of his right to remain silent. The second Doyle violation occurred when Lieutenant Terry Thomas testified that, during the interview at the police station, Brooks failed to explain his conduct: [Prosecuting Attorney]: ... [C]ould you just read the warnings that you gave him, please? [Lieutenant Thomas]: Before we ask you any questions you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in Court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask any questions and have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. [Prosecuting Attorney]: All right. Now, did you handle this attempted interview a little different than you would say for just the common criminal on the street? [Lieutenant Thomas]: Yes. [Prosecuting Attorney]: All right. And how did you do it differently? [Lieutenant Thomas]: We basically, I knew Mr. Brooks, and I say all we want is just a statement of what happened, we want to clarify everything, we want to give you the benefit of the doubt what exactly occurred. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Did he, during the interview time period, ever tell you what happened? [Lieutenant Thomas]: No, he did not. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Did he ever give you an answer? [Lieutenant Thomas]: No. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Well besides yourself, who else was there for the interview[?] You and the defendant? [Lieutenant Thomas]: Detective Mike Pruneau from the Crystal City Police Department. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Do you know of any law enforcement officers who ever, while being questioned or not being questioned, he ever told what happened? [Lieutenant Thomas]: No. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, could we approach, please? (At the bench) [Defense Counsel]: Judge, I feel like we are revisiting this, but that question: Do you know any officers that he ever told, that doesn't say prior to arrest. That could mean any time. And he did at some time assert his right, he, as Mr. Jerrell said in his opening statement, he invoked his right, he called an attorney. This is now the third time, where there has been some comment, I believe this is directed as to whether or not he maintained his position on silence. Now, I let it go the first time, because according to Officer Thomas, at that time he wasn't under arrest. He had been Mirandized out of an abundance of caution, which is okay. And I believe that's he is only underwhen he is no longer free to go. At this point he was still free to go. And I would like to be accurate, but I believe what was said, and I believe the court reporter would have it, was: Are you aware of whether or not he made any statement at any point to any of the other officers. [The Court]: That's what was said. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Your Honor [Defense Counsel]: And that is a direct comment, because this jury can be led to believe that that happened even after he was placed under arrest, and there is no way to repair it now. [Prosecuting Attorney]: I can certainly I meant before, so I can certainly re-ask the question. [The Court]: Well, I mean the objection will be sustained. I am going to instruct the juryI am going to sustain the objection and instruct you to rephrase the question [Prosecuting Attorney]: Sure. Certainly. [Defense Counsel]: ... And I would ask for a mistrial. [The Court]: And the mistrial will be denied. ... [The Court]: ... I will sustain objection and instruct the prosecutor to rerephrase the question. ... [The Court]: The objection is sustained. The question is ordered stricken from the record. [Prosecuting Attorney], you are instructed to rephrase the question. Brooks' objection was sustained, and his motion for a mistrial was overruled. The trial court instructed the prosecuting attorney to rephrase the question but erroneously did not instruct the jury to disregard the comment based on Brooks' right to remain silent.
Additionally, Brooks has identified Doyle violations that were not objected to at trial and, therefore, may be considered unpreserved for purposes of appeal or subject to plain error review. [1] During the State's opening argument, immediately after the trial court instructed the jury to ignore the State's comment about Brooks' post- Miranda silence, the State made another comment about Brooks' silence, The evidence will show that for a good part of an hour, after repeatedly asking what happened, and he would not tell them. The next comment about Brooks' post- Miranda silence came when a recording of the police interview was played for the jury. The recording contained multiple exchanges where Detective Pruneau told Brooks that he needed an explanation of what happened. The jury was already aware that Brooks never gave an explanation, and these questions were further comments about Brooks' post- Miranda silence. The recording contained the following comments: [Detective Pruneau]: Robert, I don't know what happened. All I want to do is find out what happened. And you know as well I do that when officers are first on the scene, they are coming in, they are getting their statements, you are giving a statement, we weren't there, you are upset, things were going on, so you have been doing this for years. ... [Detective Pruneau]: ... you know good and well that you can tell us what happened. ... [Detective Pruneau]: ... here's the thing, Bob, and I keep saying this, I need, because I amI am one of the investigators here, okay? And you know this. You have been there. You have don[e] it. You know how it goes. And you knowyou know, whenever we talk to somebody and we hey listen, what is your side. And when we don't get cooperation ... [Detective Pruneau]: ... it's going to be hard for me to defend you, being a police officer and saying hey, you know what he didn't cooperate, and he didn't tell me this. You know that. So I need to hear from you what happened. The tape of the interview was stopped shortly thereafter and without Brooks ever explaining what happened. As a result, the questions posed by Detective Pruneau were additional comments about Brooks' post- Miranda silence. [2] Brooks testified at trial. During cross-examination, the State commented about his post- Miranda silence, confirming that Brooks had, in fact, failed to give officers an account of what happened: [Prosecuting Attorney]: ... you were here when the tape of thator the CD of that interview was played to the jury, correct? [Robert Brooks]: Yes, sir. [Prosecuting Attorney]: All right. And neither Terry Thomas or Detective Mike Pruneau, basically what they asked you was, we just want to know what happened, give us your side of the story. Is that a fair rendition of what they were asking you? [Robert Brooks]: I believe so. [Prosecuting Attorney]: All right. And you never told them, did you? [Robert Brooks]: Didn't say anything. The State commented about Brooks' post- Miranda silence during closing arguments: The only received defense evidence you have got is what he says happened, and quite frankly, no matter how embarrassed a person is, if it had really happened like he said, he would have been screaming it to the walls. He wouldn't have started out for the intruder lie. He wouldn't have kept the lie going. He would have changed it when asked.