MYNOR VARGAS-SALGUERO v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Nazarian, June 1, 2018,
Miranda – A suspect has invoked Miranda when he says that he wants a lawyer if he’s being accused of a crime and police have already obtained a warrant for his arrest for the crime.

Facts (with legal commentary):
In 2014, Miguel Barillas was stabbed in the chest and killed in Prince George’s County.
Two witnesses observed Vargas-Salguero “punch” the victim before the men walked off in separate directions.
Detectives found that the victim’s phone was taken and tracked it back to a man who said that he got it from Vargas-Salguero shortly after the murder.
Vargas-Salguero was arrested and brought to an interrogation room where he was questioned by PG detectives.
Three detectives interviewed Vargas-Salguero, whose first language is Spanish. Two of the detectives were bilingual (English/Spanish) and the third only spoke English. Most of the interrogation took place in Spanish, with the Spanish-speaking detectives occasionally translating/summarizing for the English-speaking detective. Some of the interrogation took place in English, of which Vargas-Salguero spoke “some.”
During the interrogation, detectives asked the suspect what he did on the night of the murder.
Vargas-Salguero: At 5:30 my ride wakes me up, there at the house where I live—lived right now with my sister, that I just moved in.
Detective: Right.
Vargas-Salguero: And I go to work. That’s all I have to say to you. And if you accuse me of something I better want an attorney. (This translation was provided by PG County police. Vargas-Salguero actually said, “si me acusan de eso quiero un abogado mejor,” which the Court of Special Appeals noted translates more accurately as “I want a better lawyer.”)
Note: This is where the Court said that the questioning should have stopped, as Vargas-Salguero clearly stated a desire to speak to an attorney.
Detectives then left the room and spoke outside.
When they came back in, the suspect was crying. One of the detectives then said, “Listen, if you – if you want to talk to me, I’m willing to talk” and then laid down surveillance photos from the night of the murder on the table in front of Vargas-Salguero.
Note: The Court noted that this was improper. Once the suspect requests a lawyer or says that he’s invoking his right to remain silent, police can’t continue questioning and also can’t ask him again if he’s willing to talk. Police also can’t do things such as put evidence in front of the defendant to get him to change his mind about talking. Any further conversation about the crime can only come at the request of the defendant without any prompting by the detective.
When the suspect said, “ask me whatever you want,” one of the detectives said, “Hold up, just a moment ago you said you wanted a lawyer but you’re willing to talk to us right now, right?”
Vargas-Salguero then agreed to talk and a detective gave an abridged version of Miranda (“you understand you have the right to remain silent, you understand you have the right to have an attorney, but you’re willing to talk to us correct?”)
After a few questions, the suspect pushed the surveillance photos away from him, leaned back in his chair, and said “I have nothing else to tell you” in Spanish.
Note: The Court noted that this also should have ended the interrogation, as Vargas-Salguero clearly stated his intent to remain silent.
This was not translated by the Spanish-speaking detectives, who leaned back to allow the English-speaking detective to follow up. The English-speaking detective said “Look, are you willing to talk?”
Note: The Court said that this was improper. Detectives can not prompt a suspect to talk after he has invoked his Miranda rights.
Vargas-Salguero once again agreed to continue talking and eventually confessed to hitting and robbing the victim.
Prior to trial, Vargas-Salguero moved to have his statement thrown out. The trial judge listened to testimony by the detectives and read a version of the interrogation that they had translated. As the Court of Special Appeals noted, however, the testimony and translations were not accurate and the Court left open the question of “whether the officers created a misleading transcript intentionally.”
Based on this questionably misleading testimony and transcript, the trial judge allowed the statement and Vargas-Salguero was convicted of second-degree murder and robbery.
Vargas-Salguero appealed, arguing that he invoked Miranda but detectives continued interrogating him and therefore his statements should be suppressed.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed. Once Vargas-Salguero requested an attorney, that should have ended the interrogation. And when he pushed back the evidence in front of him and said “I have nothing else to tell you,” that should also have ended the interrogation. Because detectives violated Miranda, the confession should have been suppressed.

5th Amendment – A suspect has the constitutional right not to be forced to incriminate himself.

Miranda – To protect that right, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona held that police interrogating a suspect in custody must inform the suspect of his rights.

Miranda- These “Miranda Rights” are that the suspect:
– Has a right to remain silent
– That any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him
– That he has a right to the presence of an attorney
– If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him

Miranda – Waiver – A suspect may waive these rights as long as he does so “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.”

Miranda – Invocation – If a suspect “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.” In the alternative, if the suspect does not have an attorney and “indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.”

Miranda – Invocation – A suspect that wants to “invoke” the protection offered by the Miranda rights must do so clearly. Officers are not required to ask clarifying questions to try to figure out whether or not the suspect is invoking Miranda. The request is either clear or it doesn’t count as a request.

Miranda – Invoking the Right to an Attorney – A suspect has invoked Miranda clearly if he “expresses

a desire

to have a lawyer present for the interrogation, as opposed to mentioning

the idea

of having a lawyer present during the interrogation.”

Example from the Case: A suspect HAS clearly invoked Miranda when he said: “you mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this?” The Court found that “you mind if” was just a polite version of telling the police that he was done talking; he wasn’t actually asking for permission. Similarly, a suspect HAS clearly invoked Miranda when he said: “I’d rather appoint a lawyer” or “I think I would rather have an attorney here to speak for me.”

Example from the Case: A suspect has NOT clearly invoked Miranda (right to counsel) by saying any of the following: “Maybe I should talk with a lawyer,” “Where’s my lawyer?”, or “Should I get a lawyer?”

From the Case: Vargas-Salguero’s statement that “if you accuse me of something I better want an attorney” (even if translated accurately) clearly indicated his desire to have a lawyer present. The Court found that him saying “if you accuse me” was already beyond dispute, since he had been “arrested at his home in the middle of the night pursuant to an arrest warrant” for the murder.

Miranda – Invocation – Whether or not a defendant has “clearly” invoked Miranda is determined by the standard of what a reasonable officer would have thought under the circumstances

From the Case: “The testimony and actions of the detectives themselves demonstrated that Mr. Vargas-Salguero’s request for counsel was sufficiently clear to them. Immediately following Mr. Vargas-Salguero’s invocation, both detectives ceased asking questions and exited the room.” They returned, tried questioning him further, and even said out loud “just a moment ago you said you wanted a lawyer.” The officers then re-Mirandized the suspect and continued questioning him. The Court noted that the “officers’ words and actions” “revealed their understanding that Mr. Vargas-Salguero had asked for a lawyer.” The Court held that Vargas-Salguero clearly invoked his right to an attorney.

Miranda – Invoking the Right to Remain Silent – The right to remain silent “is invoked in precisely the same way that the right to counsel is invoked. The right to counsel is waived in precisely the same way that the right to silence is waived.” That is, it must be clearly invoked in a way that a reasonable officer would understand that the suspect was invoking his right to remain silent.

Example from the Case: A suspect HAS clearly invoked Miranda (right to remain silent) by saying any of the following: “I don’t wanna talk no more,” “I don’t want to say nothing,” “You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this,” or “I don’t want to talk anymore.”

From the Case: “It’s hard to imagine how he could have been clearer: he said ‘I don’t want to say anything else now. Because I have nothing else to say. I have nothing else to tell you,’ while flicking away the surveillance photos, leaning back in his chair, and disengaging from the questioning.” The Court therefore held that Vargas-Salguero clearly invoked his right to remain silent.

Miranda – Invocation – Once a suspect has invoked his Miranda rights, all interrogation must stop immediately.

Miranda – Change of Mind – If a suspect has invoked Miranda, interrogation must stop completely “unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”

Miranda – Change of Mind – “Threats, tricks, or cajolings” to get the suspect to change his mind “are forbidden.”

From the Case: “Mr. Vargas-Salguero invoked his right to counsel, and once he did, the detectives were required to stop questioning him until an attorney was present.” “Instead, after the detectives returned and acknowledged that Mr. Vargas-Salguero had requested an attorney, they re-advised Mr. Vargas-Salguero of his Fifth Amendment rights and asked him to waive them, at the same time they laid on the table surveillance photos that appeared to depict him at the murder scene.” The Court held that this was improper and that “because the detectives re-initiated the questioning, Mr. Vargas-Salguero did not waive his right to remain silent when he answered their questions.” “We hold that Mr. Vargas-Salguero invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, and that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.”

6th Amendment – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to… have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

6th Amendment – A defendant who has not been formally charged with a crime is not yet protected by the 6th Amendment

6th Amendment – An arrest warrant for murder issued by a court commissioner is not a “formal charge” because the defendant can’t be tried for murder on a District Court charging document.

From the Case: “It was not until Mr. Vargas-Salguero was charged by criminal indictment with murder, armed robbery, and carrying a dangerous weapon openly with intent to injure on October 30, 2014 that his Sixth Amendment rights vested.”