CLEMENT REYNOLDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Hotten, August 27, 2018,
Miranda – A defendant’s voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda can still be used to impeach him if he testifies contrary to that statement in court
Facts:
In 2014, Clement Reynolds was arrested at JFK International Airport in New York for an open warrant in the 2002 murder of Wesley King in Silver Spring, MD.
At the time Reynolds was arrested, he was using the name Dennis Graham and had a passport with that name.
Reynolds was transported to a NYPD precinct while awaiting the arrival of detectives from Montgomery County.
Reynolds insisted that his name was Dennis Graham. He waived his Miranda rights and admitted that he had been “through Maryland.” After Reynolds denied knowing anything about the murder, one of the detectives told him that “there’s overwhelming evidence that you murdered
somebody” and that this was his “opportunity to talk this out.” Reynolds replied, “there’s nothing I have to say.”
However, investigators continued questioning Reynolds. Reynolds told investigators that he was in the Virgin Islands during November of 2002. He also gave investigators the names of two people who he allegedly interacted with at the time, one of whom was fictitious. At no point did he tell investigators that he had an alibi or give them the names of people who he later claimed to be his alibi.
Prior to trial, Reynolds moved to suppress his statements to the detectives. The suppression court found that Reynolds properly invoked Miranda after saying “there’s nothing I have to say.” Therefore, everything after that point was obtained in violation of Miranda and, even though the statements were voluntary, they could not be used as direct evidence by the State.
At trial, Reynolds took the stand and completely changed his story. He now claimed that he was close with the victim, had been in Maryland regularly, knew about the murder, and fled the country after he learned that he was a suspect. He also claimed that he was in Brooklyn, New York at the time and that he had alibi witnesses to corroborate that story.
On cross-examination, the State used Reynolds’ statements to the detectives, including those obtained after Miranda was invoked, to impeach Reynolds about his story. The State asked, “So, instead of telling the police about [his alibi witnesses], who could truly alibi you, you started naming Rose Lopez and Byron Matamora, who isn’t even a real person?”
Reynolds was convicted and appealed, arguing that the State improperly used statements against him that were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
Held: The Court of Appeals held that a Miranda violation doesn’t give a defendant permission to lie on the stand (or to investigators) and that the statements were properly used for impeachment purposes.
Miranda – Statements obtained from defendants during custodial interrogation, without the full Miranda warning and waiver of those rights, are inadmissible
Miranda – Miranda requires an individual to be informed that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”
Miranda – Invocation – An invocation of Miranda rights must be unequivocal and unambiguous for the police to terminate the interrogation
Practice Note: If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement such as “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” or “I’m not sure if I should talk,” you are not required to ask clarifying questions. You can do so if you believe it would help avoid issues later on, but it is not required and can confuse issues more than clear them up.
From the Case: “There’s nothing I have to say” was reasonably interpreted by the trial court as sufficient to invoke Reynolds’ right to remain silent.
Miranda – Invocation – Once Miranda is invoked, all interrogation must stop. Police cannot “encourage” defendants to take back their invocation or suggest that they will benefit if they do so.
Miranda – Penalty – If a suspect invokes Miranda and police continue interrogating him, “any evidence flowing therefrom is illegally obtained and thus subject to exclusion as fruit of the unlawful conduct.”
Miranda – Penalty Exception – A voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda can’t be used against a defendant EXCEPT to impeach him.
From the Case: Allowing statements elicited in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes, but not as substantive evidence, strikes a balance between “precluding the use of confessions obtained in violation of Miranda, on the one hand, and not giving defendants a free ride to commit perjury,” on the other hand.
Statements – Voluntariness – A statement must always have been voluntary to be admissible. If a statement is “coerced” (forced by police), it cannot be used against the defendant even as impeachment.
Post-Arrest Silence – A defendant’s decision to remain silent after arrest cannot generally be used against him in court
Post-Arrest Silence – There is a difference between remaining silent in the face of post-arrest questioning (generally not admissible in court) and lying or only telling some facts to police officers (may be admissible)
From the Case: “We conclude that it was not error for the trial court to permit the State to inquire about prior inconsistent statements made to detectives after Reynolds invoked Miranda. The State’s use of Reynolds’s prior inconsistent statements about what he did not tell the
State were not post-arrest silence, but rather affirmative statements about his alibi. In accordance with Miranda and its progeny, it was appropriate for the State to impeach Reynolds about this testimony on cross-examination.”