Court Opinion

ID: 9493084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:57:51.761536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:38.700399
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with Section V of the Court’s opinion. As the Court’s quotation of the transcript sets out, the detective who interrogated Machacek asked him to sign “directly below ... a paragraph that is called Waiver of Rights” which says “I have read ... my rights, and ... I waive them ...” Immediately following this request for Machacek to sign the waiver, the *955detective said “we’re not asking you to waive or give up any of your rights or anything of that nature.” This latter statement was false and in my opinion constitutes a blatant violation of Miranda. The same detective then told Machacek the same thing again, a second time: “[Signing the waiver] is not waiving anything,” he said. Machacek then signed the waiver. Although I am certainly not anxious to reverse this case, I do not see how we can say anything other than that we cannot sanction this classic violation of Miranda. Maybe a detailed harmless error analysis could sustain the state conviction, but I cannot go along with my colleagues’ view that no constitutional error happened. Machacek only signed the waiver of rights after being twice told he was waiving nothing. In other words, he was falsely told that he could talk and get it off his chest without running the risk of incriminating himself. I agree with the rest of the Court’s opinion.