Opinion ID: 319181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: remedy for failure to give miranda warnings

Text: 35 The question whether the usual remedy for failure to give constitutional warnings, i.e., suppression of the testimony, can ever be employed in a situation where the testimony itself amounts to perjury was thoroughly considered in United States v. Mandujano, supra. There, we held that 36 '. . . where a totally unfair procedure is put in train-- as when there is a factual determination that a person, who is subpoenaed before the grand jury and questioned about an alleged crime, was already known to the satisfaction of the prosecuting agency prior to the grand jury appearance to be guilty of that precise crime-- , elemental fairness requires that such person is under such compulsion as to require that he be given then Miranda warnings, and that failure to do so must require suppression of any incriminating testimony given by him even though he is being prosecuted for giving false testimony.' Mandujano, supra at 1058. 37 The proceedings here were even more unfair than those in Mandujano because, not only are all the ingredients of Mandujano's predicament present, but also the warning actually given Rangel contained an implicit threat which all but negated the warning of the privileges against self-incrimination. As accurately construed by the district court: 38 'As to defendant Rangel, the statement of the right to remain silent was so garbled as to highly suspect, . . . 39 'Besides the convolution of the double negative in the foregoing language, that warning, as administered to defendant Rangel, contains an implicit threat which all but negates the warning of the right to remain silent. 40 The special attorney . . . did not suggest to Rangel that he could be held in contempt, if he wrongly refused to answer. Instead he told the defendant that he would be held in contempt, if he made the wrong guess as to the incriminating nature of an answer. The explanation by the special attorney thus carried a strong implication that any doubt as to the incriminating nature of a response should be resolved by the defendant in favor of answering, instead of in favor of silence. Judgments about the actual incriminating nature of a statement present great difficulties even for attorneys well versed in the law, so, as a general rule, they advise clients to opt for silence whenever any doubt exists. It is certainly unrealistic, as well as unfair, to require a putative defendant, who is not learned in the law, to choose between 'incriminating' and 'non-incriminating' answers, especially in the somewhat imposing environment of the grand jury room, unless he has been fully, completely, and unambiguously advised of his right to remain silent, and voluntarily waives that right.' United States v. Rangel, 365 F.Supp. at 159 (W.D.Tex.1973). 41 In fact, the statement was somewhat more threatening to Rangel than noted by the district court. The warning given by the prosecuting attorney was '. . . if the answer would not tend to incriminate you . . . you would be in contempt of court.' This, of course, is not true. In such an event Rangel would be subject to being cited for contempt unless, after the court found this privilege improperly asserted, he thereafter refused to answer. 42 We conclude that under the facts as determined by this trial court, the procedure by which Rangel, already believed by the government agent to be guilty, and later indicted for the offense, was subpoenaed to testify as to the dealings which were the basis of his indictment without Miranda type warnings was a violation of Rangel's Fifth Amendment right to due process and that the trial court's order suppressing the grand jury testimony must be affirmed.