Opinion ID: 1746854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Express Mention of the Presence of Counsel

Text: In Miranda, the Supreme Court discussed with apparent approval the FBI's standard warning form. See 384 U.S. at 484-85, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The standard warning did not expressly advise a suspect of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning. See id. The Court found that the warnings advised the suspects of their constitutional rights. See id. However, the Court additionally noted that [i]f the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. Id. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 n. 14, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964)). Despite this seeming approval of the FBI warnings, the Court suppressed all of the confessions or statements that were given in the four cases before the Court in Miranda. For example, in the case involving the defendant Miranda, the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and said, [I]t is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Id. at 492, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added). [3] In reversing the defendant's conviction in the Vignera v. New York case, the Court said, Vignera was not warned of any of his rights before the questioning by the detective and by the assistant district attorney. No other steps were taken to protect these rights. Thus he was not effectively apprised of his Fifth Amendment privilege or of his right to have counsel present .... 384 U.S. at 494, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added). At the trial the defense had attempted to question the police officer concerning whether Vignera had been informed of his right to counsel prior to interrogation. The trial judge sustained the State's objection to the question, thus precluding the defense from showing that the proper warnings had not been given. See id. at 493, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In addition, the verbatim transcription of the questioning of the defendant did not demonstrate that warnings had been given. See id. The third case in the Miranda grouping, Westover v. United States, involved a situation where the Kansas City police questioned the defendant for a number of hours. See 384 U.S. at 494-95, 86 S.Ct. 1602. There was no indication that the local police had given the defendant any Fifth Amendment warnings. See id. at 495, 86 S.Ct. 1602. After the police concluded their interrogation, Westover was immediately turned over to the FBI for questioning. See id. The questioning took place at the same police station where the local police had questioned the defendant. See id. At trial one of the FBI agents testified that the defendant was told he did not have to make a statement, any statement made could be used against him, and he had the right to see an attorney. See id. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction despite the testimony of the agent and in doing so the Court said, There is no evidence of any warning given prior to the FBI interrogation nor is there any evidence of an articulated waiver of rights after the FBI commenced its interrogation. Id. at 496, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In the final Miranda case, California v. Stewart, the Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's confession should have been suppressed because the record did not state whether the defendant had been advised of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. See id. at 497-98, 86 S.Ct. 1602. While the four cases that were the subject of the Miranda decision did not present the type of factual scenario or the exact question we address today, some state and federal courts have addressed the exact issue of whether a suspect must be informed of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning with differing results. The principles espoused in the Miranda decision formed the basis of how these courts have treated the warnings.
The federal courts are split regarding the necessity for express warnings of the right to have counsel present during interrogation. Several of the federal circuits have held that a suspect is entitled to be expressly informed of the right to have counsel present during questioning. In United States v. Tillman, 963 F.2d 137 (6th Cir.1992), the defendant was informed: [You have] the right to remain silent, the right to the presence of an attorney if [you] so wish, [you] are not required to answer any questions and if [you] decide to answer questions [you] can stop and do so.... Id. at 140. The defendant argued that the Miranda warnings read to him were inadequate because he was never told that any statements he might make could be used against him, and that he was not informed he was entitled to an attorney during questioning in addition to before questioning. Tillman, 963 F.2d at 140. The Sixth Circuit agreed and held that the statements made by the defendant subsequent to his arrest should be suppressed. See id. at 142. The court found a Miranda violation because the police failed to inform the defendant that he had the right to an attorney before, during, and after questioning. See Tillman, 963 F.2d at 141. Additionally, in Montoya v. United States, 392 F.2d 731 (5th Cir.1968), the Fifth Circuit found the warnings insufficient. Id. at 732. The customs agent testified that he informed the defendant as follows: [S]he had the right to remain silent, that anything she might say could be used against her if she was tried. [S]he had a right to an attorney, and, if she could not afford an attorney, one would be provided for her. [S]he could terminate the interview at any time she so desired. Id. at 733. The court held that the defendant's confession was fatally defective under Miranda because an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. Montoya, 392 F.2d at 734 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602). The court reasoned that this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. See id. at 735; see also United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that the right of the accused to be told that he can have counsel present during questioning is meaningful and mandated by the United States Constitution); Windsor v. United States, 389 F.2d 530, 533 (5th Cir.1968) (noting that merely telling an individual that he could speak with an attorney before he said anything at all is not the same as informing him that he is entitled to the presence of an attorney during interrogation). In contrast, several other circuits have found warnings adequate that did not expressly inform the defendant of the right to have counsel present during questioning. For example, in United States v. Frankson, 83 F.3d 79 (4th Cir.1996), the defendant was informed: [Y]ou have the right to an attorney. Id. at 81. The officer told the defendant that while he was talking to [the officer], he was free to stop talking to [the officer] at any time. Id. Frankson contended that the officer's warning failed to satisfy Miranda because it did not convey that he had the right to talk with counsel prior to the interrogation or the right to have counsel present during the interrogation. See Frankson, 83 F.3d at 81. The court held that the defendant's Miranda warnings were not erroneous because the warnings communicated to [the defendant] that his right to an attorney began immediately and continued forward in time without qualification. Frankson, 83 F.3d at 82. More recent, in Bridgers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 853 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 909, 126 S.Ct. 2961, 165 L.Ed.2d 959 (2006), the defendant was informed of his right to the presence of an attorney prior to any questioning. See id. at 856. Bridgers contended that the warnings he received were inadequate under Miranda because the warnings did not also explicitly state that he had a right to consult an attorney during questioning. See Dretke, 431 F.3d at 857. The court found the state appellate court's decision upholding the warning was adequate because it was a reasonable application of clearly established federal law. See id. at 858-60. [4]
After our holding in Traylor, we reiterated the principles espoused in Traylor and the Miranda decision in several other decisions from this Court. In both Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999), and Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1997), neither of which presented the exact issue involved in the case that is presently before us, we noted the requirements of both the Fifth Amendment, as explained in Miranda, and the Florida Constitution, as explained in Traylor. Our explanation of the federal and state requirements included the requirement that a suspect be informed of the right to have counsel present during questioning. See Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 573 (quoting from Miranda that suspects must be informed that they have a right to an attorney during questioning); Sapp, 690 So.2d at 583-84 (citing to Miranda for the proposition that an individual has the right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation). More recently, the issue of whether Miranda requires that an individual be expressly informed of his right to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation has been addressed by several of the Florida district courts of appeal. In addition to the Powell case, the Second District addressed this issue in M.A.B. v. State, 957 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (en banc); Mitchell v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2958, ___ So.2d ___, 2007 WL 4355200 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.14, 2007), notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC07-2429 (Fla. Dec. 28, 2007); and Seward v. State, 973 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). As in this case, the defendants in these three cases argued that the Miranda warnings given to them were inadequate because the warnings did not specifically inform them of the right to have counsel present during police questioning. In M.A.B., considering the case en banc, the Second District was evenly divided seven-to-seven; thus, a majority of the court did not reach a decision on the adequacy of the Miranda warnings. [5] Subsequent to M.A.B., the Second District decided Powell and applied Powell when it decided in Mitchell and Seward that the Miranda warnings were deficient because the warnings did not specifically inform the defendants of their right to have counsel present during questioning. Later, however, in Graham v. State, 974 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the Second District distinguished Powell because the police in Graham advised the defendant that he had the right to the presence of an attorney and did not include any timeframe limitation. See Graham, 974 So.2d at 440. In multiple cases the Fourth District Court of Appeal has addressed the issue of whether an individual must be expressly informed of his right to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation. In Roberts v. State, 874 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the police advised the defendant: You have the right to talk with a lawyer and have a lawyer present before any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish. Id. at 1226. The defendant contended that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights under Miranda because the Miranda warning he received failed to inform him that he had a right to have an attorney present during questioning. See Roberts, 874 So.2d at 1226. The district court agreed and reversed his conviction. See id. [6] The court reasoned that nowhere does the Miranda form advise the defendant of his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. See Roberts, 874 So.2d at 1226. The use of the before questioning warning alone suggests that the suspect was misled into believing that the attorney could not be present during questioning itself. See id. at 1228 (citing Caldwell, 954 F.2d at 504). Moreover, the court rejected the State's argument that the defendant understood his rights because he also signed a waiver of rights Miranda form. See Roberts, 874 So.2d at 1229. [7] Thereafter, the court, in Franklin v. State, 876 So.2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and West v. State, 876 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), relied on Roberts and reversed the convictions where the same deficient warnings were given. The defendant in Franklin presented to the trial court ninety forms used by both state and federal law enforcement agencies. Eighty-nine of the forms advised the defendant that he or she could consult with an attorney during questioning. Only the form that was used in Franklin's case did not contain that advice. Additionally, in support of its finding that the omitted warning was critical, the court cited language from Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), indicating that Miranda does not require law enforcement to produce attorneys as if on call, but Miranda does require that a suspect be informed that he has the right to an attorney before and during questioning. See Franklin, 876 So.2d at 608. [8] The Fifth District also addressed a similar issue in Maxwell v. State, 917 So.2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and Octave v. State, 925 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In Maxwell, the police officer failed to advise the defendant that he had a right to have an attorney present during questioning and that an attorney would be appointed to represent him if he could not afford one. 917 So.2d at 406. Accordingly, the district court held that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to suppress. The district court noted: We do not believe that even the most erudite or mature individual could reasonably discern with the level of understanding required by Miranda that the warning given to Jonathanthat he had the right to an attorneyencompasses the right to have an attorney present during questioning and the right to have one appointed in the event the individual could not afford to hire one. Failure to provide these warnings to Jonathan renders the statements he made inadmissible. See id. at 409. Similarly, in Octave, the police only explained to the defendant that she had a right to counsel. See 925 So.2d at 1129. Citing Maxwell, the court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding the warnings given did not apprise the defendant of her right to have a lawyer present during questioning. [9]