Court Opinion

ID: 9718261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:19:47.71469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.266517
License: Public Domain

Whittemore, J.
(dissenting) For the waiver to be made “knowingly and intelligently” as required by the Miranda rule, as to which the Commonwealth has the burden of *558proof, it must be shown that an understandable statement of the rights was given (384 U. S. at 479). The statement was required at least as early as the discovery of the scratches. It is not determinative that the express confessions were made in the evening interrogations. The defendant’s custody began about 11 a.m., some twelve hours before his oral confession, and in the course of the day and evening he proceeded gradually into a state of inescapable involvement. The question whether he would take a lie detector test was a part of the police interrogation and the test was undoubtedly a factor leading to the later confession.
The evidence, to me, does not permit the conclusion that in the morning the defendant was “clearly informed that he . . . Chad] the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation” (384 U. S. at 471) (emphasis supplied). Informing the defendant that he was entitled “to be represented at all times by counsel,” “to the services of an attorney,” and “to the use of the phone for the purpose of engaging an attorney” did not clearly inform him that he had a right to have the lawyer present at the police station and to consult with him before he answered any more questions. On the record it was only in the evening that the defendant was told that “an attorney can be present here now.” It may be that the warnings given in the morning were as full as those given in the evening. Possibly in the use of the word “again” Lieutenant Shea intended so to state. But this possibility is not enough to establish compliance with the rule. Hence, I conclude that the judgment should be reversed.
The testimony (given by three officers and the defendant) at the voir dire did not permit the conclusion that it had been shown that the defendant had been told in the morning that an attorney would be provided if he could not afford one. Lieutenant Shea’s testimony at the trial, as first given, also omitted this. It was only after a leading question which, although excluded, operated to call his attention to the omission, that the witness, in answer to a succeeding question, gave the testimony stated in the majority opinion. *559The evidence is inconsistent and an unsatisfactory basis for a finding that the morning warning had been shown in this respect to be adequate.
A retrial would permit a determination to be made on evidence free of the present uncertainties and ambiguities.
In this case the police pressures were not undue, the guilt of the defendant is clearly established by his confession, and it may be that whatever was said to the defendant he would have continued to talk. I believe, however, that the Miranda rule, so long as it remains an applicable principle of constitutional law, must be applied as declared.