Court Opinion

ID: 9544447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:40.406293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:00.223476
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, President Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
It is well settled that upon arrest, the police must inform an accused person of his rights. In order to protect the suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination, the police must tell him that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-73, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624-27, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
The Supreme Court has also emphasized that the police may not question the accused if he indicates that he wishes to speak to an attorney. Nor can they question him if he *214states that he does not want to be interrogated. Id. at 470-73, 86 S.Ct. at 1625-27. If the police violate these procedural safeguards, any statements they have obtained will be inadmissible at trial. Id. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628.
However, Miranda applies only to statements made as a result of police interrogation. Any statement spontaneously volunteered by an accused is admissible even if he has previously asserted his Miranda rights. Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 491 Pa. 300, 313, 421 A.2d 147, 153 (1980); Commonwealth v. Myers, 481 Pa. 217, 392 A.2d 685 (1978).
In the instant case, both parties have stipulated that the statements in question were voluntary, spontaneous utterances and were not made in response to police interrogation. Therefore, the accused’s statements should be admissible. However, the appellee contends that the recent case of Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 106 S.Ct. 634, 639, 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986) compels a different result. However, the facts in this case are totally dissimilar from those of Wainwright. Also, the rationale used by the Wainwright Court does not apply to the situation before us. In fact, by virtue of its holding today, this panel establishes a dangerous precedent which is sure to confuse and hamstring law enforcement officials and trial courts in the pursuit of their duties.
As noted above, under Miranda and its progeny, the general rule is that voluntary, spontaneous statements are admissible at trial even if an accused has stated that he intends to remain silent. In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the Court held that silence cannot be used against an accused. In Wainwright, the Court interpreted its Doyle holding as preventing use of an accused’s silence to show that he was not insane at the time of the crime.
In Wainwright, the Court, per Justice Stevens, stated: “With respect to post-Miranda warnings ‘silence,’ we point out that silence does not mean only muteness; it includes the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consult*215ed.” Id. 474 at —, 106 S.Ct. at 640-41, 88 L.Ed.2d at 632 n. 4b.
Justice Stevens provided two rationales to support the Court’s holding. He stated that the use of a defendant’s silence is fundamentally unfair because it violates an implied promise by the government. Justice Stevens wrote that:
Miranda warnings contain an implied promise, rooted in the Constitution that ‘silence will carry no penalty.’ Our conclusion [is] that it [is] fundamentally unfair ... to breach that promise by using the defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda warnings silence ... as evidence of his sanity.
Id. at —, 106 S.Ct. at 641, 88 L.Ed.2d at 632. (Citations omitted).
The Court also noted that silence is “insolubly ambiguous” and thus its probative value is outweighed by the “fundamental unfairness that flows from the State’s breach of its implied assurances.” Id. at —, —, 106 S.Ct. at 640, 88 L.Ed.2d at 631-32. The Court quoted the Florida Supreme Court’s view of the probative value of silence in an insanity context.
Post-arrest, post-Miranda silence is deemed to have dubious probative value by reason of the many and ambiguous explanations for such silence.... For example, one could reasonably conclude that custodial interrogation might intimidate a mentally unstable person to silence. Likewise, an emotionally disturbed person could be reasonably thought to rely on the assurances given during a Miranda warning and thereafter choose to remain silent. In sum, just what induces post-arrest, post-Miranda silence remains ... a mystery.... Silence in the face of accusation is an enigma....
Wainwright, 474 U.S. at —n. 11, 106 S.Ct. at 640 n. 11, 88 L.Ed.2d at 631-32 n. 11 (citations omitted), (quoting State v. Burwick, 442 So.2d 944, 948 (Fla.1983)).
Based upon the foregoing rationales, the Wainwright Court carved out a limited exception to the general admissi*216bility of voluntary, spontaneous statements. This exception applies to “the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as a statement of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consulted.” Wainwright, 474 U.S. at —, 106 S.Ct. at 640-41, 88 L.Ed.2d at 632 n. 4b. Appellee’s statements went far beyond the parameters of these limited exceptions. He questioned the quality of public defenders, whether a particular individual was his attorney, and whether consultation with his attorney would be logistically possible. These rather complex inquiries bear little resemblance to the Wainwright exceptions. Appellee’s question concerning the quality of public defenders cannot possibly be interpreted as a “statement of a desire to remain silent.” Id.
Nor do the Wainwright rationales support extending that case’s holding to include situations such as this. Justice Stevens stated that use of a defendant’s silence is fundamentally unfair because it violates an implied promise by the government that silence will cause no penalty. Id. at —, 106 S.Ct. at 640-41, 88 L.Ed.2d at 632. However, the government has made no implied promise that the defendant is entitled to do anything but remain silent or indicate that he intends to exercise his right to do so. Any other statements made by an accused are made at his own risk. The Wainwright Court’s decision was logical because if an accused wishes to see an attorney he must somehow communicate that desire. A suspect’s right to remain silent until counsel arrives would be totally meaningless if he could not communicate his wishes without fear of self-incrimination. A right which cannot be exercised without penalty protects no one. However, an accused can effectively exercise his right to counsel without questioning the police about the entire nature of the attorney-client relationship. The accused has no constitutional right to demand that the police engage in a comparative analysis of attorney qualifications. Nor does he have a constitutional right to a logistical explanation of how and when he will meet with his attorney. Nor does he have a constitutional right to inquire *217into the background of each person who passes by while he’s waiting in the stationhouse.
An accused’s statements do not receive constitutional protection because they include a reference to lawyers. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
To hold that every utterance of the word “lawyer” automatically erects [a] 'cone of silence’ around the accused ... would be far too rigid and would not serve the interests or needs of justice.
Commonwealth v. Hubble, 509 Pa. 497, 511, 504 A.2d 168, 175 (1986).
The majority correctly notes that Hubble is not controlling of the instant case but it certainly is instructive. The Hubble Court recognized that there is no constitutional principle affording protection to all statements containing the word lawyer. Reduced to its bare essentials, that is the very argument made by the appellee. He has demonstrated no other reason why his statements should receive constitutional protection. They were not an invocation of his right to counsel nor were they necessary for the effective exercise of that right. Appellee’s statements were nothing more than inquiries into the attorney-client relationship. This Court has today recognized a constitutional right to investigate your attorney’s background and qualifications. I doubt that Justice Stevens intended such an expansive interpretation when he wrote that “silence does not mean only muteness.” In the future, Pennsylvania law enforcement officials and trial judges will have little idea as to when an accused’s statements shed the cloak of silence and lose constitutional protection. If “silence” includes questioning of whether a public defender is as qualified as a private attorney, does it also include inquiries into the attorney’s law school background, class rank, professional honors, publications and income? Denying an accused constitutional protection for these types of statements hardly rises to the level of fundamental unfairness cited by the Wainwright Court.
*218Nor were appellee’s statements “insolubly ambiguous”. There is no ambiguity in a straightforward inquiry into the qualifications of the public defender. Appellee’s statement exhibits concern over whether he will receive effective representation. Though this is certainly not conclusive proof of sanity, it demonstrates coherent, rational thought and is highly relevant where the plea is based on insanity.
The Miranda Court intended to safeguard the right of innocent persons. Towards that end, the Court afforded accused persons a two-pronged protection. The Court required that police inform suspects of their constitutional rights and the court protected arrestees from coercive police techniques. It is often forgotten that in Miranda, the indigent Mexican defendant was seriously disturbed and was never informed of his rights. Yet, the prosecution miraculously produced a typed and signed confession stating that he understood his rights and had voluntarily waived them. This voluntary waiver occurred after a long period of isolation in a special police interrogation room. The Court’s decision was in reaction to this obvious abuse of police power.
The Miranda Court also catalogued some of the techniques used by police to coerce confessions from suspects. Miranda 384 U.S. at 446-455, 86 S.Ct. at 1613-18. The Court noted that police had sometimes used “physical brutality — beating, hanging, whipping ... in order to extort confessions.” Id. at 446, 86 S.Ct. at 1613. The Court also discussed the use of isolation, legal misstatements and trick line-ups. The Court described these psychological pressures as “[psychological] intimidation ... destructive of human dignity.” Id. at 457, 86 S.Ct. at 1619. However, appellee admits that his statements were not coerced and the record does not contain even a hint of psychological intimidation by the police. Also, appellee's own statements show that he understood his rights. He questioned whether the public defender was as qualified as a private attorney and where he could meet with his attorney. These are not the statements of a person who does not realize that he has *219the right to an attorney. Appellee’s questions show that he not only understood his rights but was busy scheming as to the best way to utilize them.
The Miranda Court was careful to note that “[a]ny statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Id. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. The Court did not intend to turn law enforcement into a contest of technicalities. The Court wished only to protect innocent persons against the evils enumerated above. In the ensuing years, courts have lost sight of the policies underlying Miranda. Some decisions have forced law enforcement officials to battle the very legal system they are supposed to serve in order to convict guilty offenders. I am saddened to say that today’s decision by this panel continues this unfortunate distortion of Miranda. Appellee admits that he is guilty as charged and that the statements in question were voluntarily made, yet, this panel requires those statements be held inadmissible.
The Miranda Court stated that it did not wish to “constitute an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement.” Id. at 481, 86 S.Ct. at 1631. Unfortunately, today’s decision cannot help doing just that. It is a completely unwarranted deviation from the long-standing principle that voluntary statements are admissible.
Accordingly, I must dissent.