HIGH COURT TO REVIEW RULING BLOCKING INCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE
Oral argument in Maryland v. Blake scheduled for Tuesday, November
1
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument Tuesday regarding
a Maryland appeals court ruling to suppress the incriminating statements
of a juvenile who participated in a 2002 murder. The case of Maryland
v. Blake involves statements Leeander Blake made to police detectives
following his arrest for murder. Initially Blake, who was 17 at the
time, did not want to talk without an attorney. After Blake was given
charging documents, an officer taunted, “I bet you want to talk
now,” but was quickly corrected by his superior, who told the officer
in Blake’s presence that the police could not talk to Blake. A
short time later, Blake changed his mind, asked to speak to the officer,
and admitted his involvement in the murder. Last year, the Maryland
Court of Appeals announced that the interrogation of Blake by police
violated his constitutional rights.
“This case is important because the defendant admitted in court
that his decision to talk to police was voluntary and any mistake made
by the first officer was quickly corrected by his superior,” said
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Attorney Charles Hobson. “An
initial violation of Miranda should not be extended to exclude
subsequent incriminating statements given voluntarily and in compliance
with Miranda,” he added. The Foundation has introduced an
amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief arguing to overturn the Maryland
court’s decision.
The following facts were taken from court records. On September 19,
2002, Straughan Griffin was shot and killed in front of his home in
Annapolis, Maryland. His assailants shot him in the head, stole his
automobile and ran over his body as they fled the scene. Six days later,
when Terrence Tolbert was arrested in connection with the murder, he
identified Leeander Blake as the shooter.
Early the next morning, Blake was arrested and taken to police headquarters
wearing only a pair of boxer shorts and a tank top. After he was advised
of his right to remain silent, Blake indicated that he did not want
to talk to the police without an attorney. At that point, the interview
was stopped and the detective in charge had Blake placed in a holding
cell. A short time later, the detective brought Blake a copy of his
arrest warrant and charging statement as required by Maryland law. The
detective explained to Blake that he was charged with first-degree murder,
second-degree murder, armed robbery, armed carjacking, and use of a
handgun. He advised Blake to read and carefully consider the charging
statement, which also indicated that a conviction of these crimes could
result in a death sentence. Because Blake was under 18, he was not eligible
for the death penalty under Maryland law. As the detective left Blake’s
cell, another officer appeared and said, “I bet you want to talk
now, huh!” The detective quickly rebuked the officer, saying, “No
he doesn’t want to talk to us. He already asked for a lawyer. We
cannot talk to him now.”
About a half hour later, the detective brought Blake some additional
clothes retrieved from his home. As he handed over the clothing, Blake
said, “I can still talk to you?” To which the detective replied,
“Are you saying you want to talk to me now?” Blake said, “Yes.”
A few minutes later Blake was taken to an interrogation room and reread
his Miranda rights. He waived his right to remain silent and
discussed the crime with the detective, incriminating himself. He then
agreed to take a polygraph exam, where he made additional incriminating
statements.
Prior to trial, Blake’s attorney moved to suppress his client’s
statements, arguing that the police had violated his rights by badgering
him into talking after he had asked for an attorney. At the hearing,
Blake testified that he decided to talk after learning that he might
face the death penalty, and also after reading in the charging statement
that Tolbert had accused him of the killing. He testified that it was
Tolbert who killed the victim and that he decided to talk to the police
to set the record straight. The court ruled to suppress Blake’s
statements, finding that the second interview was improper under Miranda,
which requires police to advise a suspect of his rights before questioning,
and Edwards v. Arizona, which prohibits police from badgering
a suspect after he has asked for an attorney. The state appealed, winning
a decision to allow the statements in Maryland’s intermediate appellate
court then losing in the state’s highest court, which affirmed
the initial ruling to suppress them.
When the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s
appeal, the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined
the case to argue that the suppression ruling of Maryland’s highest
court expands the restrictions on police required by Miranda
and Edwards to prevent the use of incriminating statements voluntarily
made by a suspect. The Foundation’s brief points out that the circumstances
which led up to Blake’s statements do not constitute badgering
or intimidation by the police. After considering the charges against
him, and the fact that his partner had named him as the murderer, Blake
asked to be interviewed. The Foundation is encouraging the Court to
overturn the Maryland decision in order to protect the ability of police
to solve serious crimes. “A decision favoring the defendant in
this case would keep incriminating evidence from juries, even when the
suspect volunteers to talk to police,” said CJLF Attorney Charles
Hobson. “Only guilty criminals would benefit from such a holding,
and the law-abiding public would pay the price,” he added.
CJLF Attorney Charles Hobson is available for comment
at (916) 446-0345.
Over the Supreme Court’s previous term the Foundation helped
win seven decisions favoring law enforcement and victims’ rights.
The Foundation’s brief in this case is available at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Blake.pdf
|
