The Court of Appeals in IN RE S.W., decided on September 17, 2015, reversed conviction due to faulty Miranda rendering post arrest interrogation inadmissible.

SW after trial was convicted of: (1) carjacking, (2) attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, (3) unlawful
entry of a motor vehicle, and (4) threats to do bodily harm.

The post arrest interrogation was deemed admissible as the trial court deemed confession valid and Miranda warning appropriate, the Court of Appeals disagreed as closer analysis of the Miranda warning administered and the dialog before the warning was deemed too coercive.

Specifically, the appellant argued that the detective’s pre-Miranda remarks rendered the subsequent Miranda warning ineffective as a matter of law, that the confession that proceeded was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The detective’s pre-Miranda remarks were as follows:

I know you know why you’re up here, so I ain’t gonna
play the ‘I don’t know’ crap, all right? I’m gonna give
you an opportunity to give your version of what
happened today, because . . . I stand between you and the
lions out there. . . . [W]e have a lot of things going on out
there, and they’re gonna try and say that you did it all.
Okay? And I think what happened today was just a onetime
thing. But before I came out here everybody said
. . . you did a whole bunch of stuff, but in order for us to
have a conversation, I have to read you your rights and
you have to waive your rights. If you answer no to any
of the questions I ask you after I read you your rights,
that’s all, I mean, I can’t have the interview, okay?

The Court pointed out that a valid waiver of Miranda rights has two distinct elements: “(1) it must be knowing and intelligent, ‘made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it,’ and (2) it must be voluntary, ‘the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.’

On the first prong the Court adhered to the trial Judge’s ruling that the waiver was knowing and intelligent – however held that the detective’s pre-Miranda remarks did qualify as intimidation, coercive or deception.

Essentially, the detective by describing himself as the protector from “lions out there” inserted a coercive element in the process negating the very purpose of Miranda warning. The Court also noted that given the age and disposition of the defendant, a juvenile, and the totality of circumstances, this language was enough to cross the constitutional threshold of rendering the warning ineffective.

This case highlights that mere verbatim utterance of the warning, word for word, would not make the confession necessarily valid – it is the context and surrounding circumstances that at times may determine the validity and the authenticity of the Miranda warning.