Opinion ID: 2193125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion to Suppress Confession

Text: Mr. Hairston contends in his main brief that his written statement should have been suppressed because his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights were violated. Specifically, he complains that the police deliberately withheld [his] Miranda rights; that [i]nstead of providing Miranda rights prior to their custodial interrogation, police officers tried to exact an incriminating statement from [Mr.] Hairston by confronting him with evidence and questioning him for at least an hour. He maintains that, based on this conduct, the trial court should have suppressed his statement. The government insists in its main brief that Mr. Hairston voluntarily confessed his role in [Mr.] Johnson's murder after signing a Form PD-47 waiving his Miranda rights, and that, at any rate, he made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver [of his Miranda rights] under the totality of the circumstances. (Emphasis in original). We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). In his supplemental brief, Mr. Hairston argues that [b]ecause this case... involves a confession obtained through question-first police tactics designed to sap the Miranda warnings of their protective value, this [c]ourt should reverse the [trial court's] judgment .... He claims that he was subjected to a brutal series of `psychological ploys' designed precisely to break his will so that the Miranda warnings, when finally given, were an empty gesture. The government contends that Seibert was based on an entirely different set of circumstances, and that an essential factor upon which Seibert is based the existence of an unwarned confession... is not present here.