Court Opinion

ID: 9696437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:47:58.232936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.310905
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent from that portion of the opinion dealing with appellant’s Miranda rights. As the opinion points out, Officer Burton called appellant’s attention to a large card on the wall setting forth a statement of his rights, as an arrested person, under Miranda. Appellant indicated no interest and would not even look at the card. Later when Detective Evanoff began to read to appellant his rights under Miranda, and at the same time attempted to direct appellant’s attention to the card on the wall, appellant cut him off, saying he knew his rights and refused to look at the card. I think Miranda must be interpreted in a realistic and reasonable manner, and that the officers did all that reasonable men could do.
*360What more could the officers have done ? Should they have attempted to force appellant to read or to listen ? Should the detective have continued to read when it was obvious that appellant was not listening?
It is my opinion that when officers make a good faith effort to inform an arrested person of his Miranda rights and that person refuses to pay any attention to the officers, such person has no standing to complain that he was not informed of his rights.
It is also my opinion that when an arrested person is informed of his rights and indicates no desire to take advantage of any of those rights, the trial court may find, as it did here, that such person knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support that.finding it should stand, and I think that is the situation here. I believe my position is supported by the recent decision in United States v. McNeil, U.S.App.D.C. (decided October 31, 1969).
I would affirm the conviction.