Opinion ID: 441667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Erroneous Explanations

Text: 3 De La Rosa does not claim that he did not receive Miranda warnings. Rather, his principal contention is that police officers, after reading the standard Miranda rights card, proceeded to explain what the recited language meant in a manner that was misleading and inadequate. De La Rosa argues that the paraphrased Miranda warnings improperly linked his right to have an attorney to some point in the future. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970). He also suggests that his intelligence, evaluated as between borderline retarded and dull normal, heightened the inadequacy of the warnings because he could not fully understand the formal, recited language and therefore relied on explanations. De La Rosa ultimately argues that he made no knowing waiver of his rights prior to making his confession. 4 The findings to the contrary by the state district judge are supported by overpowering evidence. Several police officers possessing an arrest warrant entered a house, looking for De La Rosa. De La Rosa exited through a rear window, to encounter and be arrested by Officer Vaquera. De La Rosa was handcuffed and taken to a police car. Vaquera was carrying a card with Miranda rights printed in English and in Spanish. He first read De La Rosa the warnings in Spanish, and then repeated them in street-type Spanish to ensure that all was understood. 5 Detective Michalec, who had known De La Rosa for several months, then took over, reciting the Miranda warnings in English. Michalec also explained De La Rosa's rights in common everyday language. After De La Rosa was taken to the police station, Michalec asked him if he wanted to give a confession and he replied that he did not know. Michalec asked him if he wanted an attorney present, and De La Rosa said that he would rather talk to his brother, who was also at the police station in another room. After De La Rosa met with his brother and a friend, he told Michalec that he wanted to tell him everything. Michalec initially took a statement about the shooting and robbery at the Stop & Go store, and then typed up a second statement concerning the Ghazali killing. Before each statement, Michalec again read Miranda rights to De La Rosa, who later signed each statement before two witnesses. 6 The state trial court found that De La Rosa knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that he was never mistreated, threatened, coerced, or promised anything. The court concluded that he freely confessed to the capital murder of Ghazali. 7 Dr. Charles Bisbee, a psychologist called by De La Rosa, testified that his verbal I.Q. indicated borderline intelligence, falling above mentally retarded but below dull normal. Bisbee stated that an examination of De La Rosa revealed no thought disorder. He indicated that De La Rosa would have difficulty comprehending written Miranda warnings, but that he would understand them better, although not completely, if given orally. Bisbee also stated that De La Rosa could understand the warnings if they were explained to him in simple language. 8 Dr. Betty Schroeder, a psychologist called by the prosecution, gave Miranda warnings to De La Rosa in a test situation. She stated that he understood them completely then and would have comprehended them at the time of his arrest, even under stress. She tested De La Rosa on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test; his verbal I.Q. was evaluated as borderline, and his performance I.Q. was well within normal limits. 9 De La Rosa's brief focuses on testimony by Michalec that, while explaining Miranda rights, he stated that it will take some time before a lawyer would be appointed. Because of this statement, De La Rosa argues that this case is like others in which Miranda explanations were ruled inadequate because the right to appointed counsel was linked to some future point in time after the police interrogation. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 360, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2810, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (per curiam). See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam); Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524, 534-35 (5th Cir.1968). 10 We disagree. The cases De La Rosa relies on share the deficiency that the Miranda warnings failed effectively [to] convey to the accused that he is entitled to a government-furnished counsel here and now. Lathers, 396 F.2d at 535; see, e.g., Gilpin v. United States, 415 F.2d 638, 640-41 (5th Cir.1969). For example, in Garcia, [o]n no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. 431 F.2d 134. The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. Id. Similarly, in Lathers, the message indicated only that a judge or commissioner somewhere down the line would appoint a lawyer for him if he so requested. 396 F.2d at 535. 11 By contrast, the warnings given to De La Rosa were not characterized by this deficiency. Officer Vaquera informed him in Spanish, You have a right to have a lawyer present to advise you before and during any questioning by police officers or attorneys representing the State. De La Rosa was also told: You may have your own lawyer present or if you are too poor to hire a lawyer, the court will appoint a lawyer for you free of charge now or at any other time. Detective Michalec gave him the same warnings in English. We cannot accept the position that would have us ignore the repeated full and accurate warnings to focus only on the remark that appointing an attorney would take some time. The cumulative effect of the repeated incantations of Miranda and explanations in simpler language was such that De La Rosa was fully informed of his constitutional rights. This case is governed by California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 356, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2807, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981), and not by cases in which the reference to appointed counsel was linked to a future point in time after police interrogation. Id. at 360, 101 S.Ct. at 2810. 12 The state trial court found as historical fact that De La Rosa was given Miranda warnings along with explanations four times before he confessed. This finding has far more than fair support in the record, and is entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. See, e.g., Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983); Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U.S. 111, 103 S.Ct. 2261, 76 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (per curiam).