Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Right to Remain Silent

You have the right to remain silent…as long as you’re in custody and have been mirandized.

In Salinas v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed an issue about which it and the Supreme Court have remained silent while many other courts across the nation are split; whether the state may comment on an accused's silence prior to his arrest and Miranda warnings.

In Salinas, the appellant was convicted for murder and sentenced to 20 years in the penitentiary after the state introduced evidence during guilt/innocence about his refusal to answer a question about the possibility of the shotgun shells found on scene matching the shotgun found at his residence.  Appellant refused to answer the question, choosing to remain silent, at a time prior to his arrest and before the police had issued any Miranda warnings.  The defense argued the state was solely using the testimony regarding appellant’s silence as evidence of his guilt in violation of the 5th Amendment.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow the questioning, focusing on the difference between post-arrest, post-Miranda silence and pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence.  The court of appeals noted that the appellant voluntarily answered questions by police for over an hour before refusing to answer the ballistics question.  Citing Justice Stevens concurring opinion in Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) the CCA held:

the Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination is "irrelevant to a citizen’s decision to remain silent when he is under no official compulsion to speak."

The CCA spent little time in this opinion to proclaim loudly it affirms the Fourteenth Court’s holding:

The plain language of the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from compelled self-incrimination.  In pre-arrest, pre-Miranda circumstances, a suspect’s interaction with police officers is not compelled.

Now, we will continue waiting for SCOTUS to speak up on the issue hoping they don’t continue exercising their right to remain silent…

Questioning an Inmate About an Unrelated Crime? Miranda Warnings?

Howes v. Fields is a U.S. Supreme Court Case that was released on February 21, 2012.  In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that there is no bright line rule for determining when an inmate is in "custody," such that Miranda warnings are required if officers wish to questions him about an unrelated crime.

While serving a jail sentence, a corrections officer escorted Fields to a conference room where two police officers questioned him about an unrelated crime.  At the beginning of the interview, the officers told Fields that he could leave whenever he wanted.  Fields eventually confessed to the crime.  The officers never advised Fields of his Miranda warnings or told him that he did not have to speak with him.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that any time an inmate is taken from the general prison population and questioned about a crime that occurred outside the prison, he is always in-custody for Miranda purposes.  Makes sense, right?
The Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court held that serving a term of imprisonment, by itself, is not enough to constitute Miranda custody.  When a prisoner is questioned, the determination of Miranda custody should focus on all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, to include the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted.

In this case, the Court held that Fields was not in-custody for Miranda purposes.  Although the interview lasted between five and seven hours and continued well past the time Fields went to bed, the officers told Fields several times that he could leave and go back to his cell whenever he wanted.  Additionally, the interview was conducted in comfortable conference room, the officers did not physically restrain or threaten Fields and they offered him food and water.  All of these facts are consistent with an interrogation environment in which a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave.

Fifth Circuit Federal Court Update

Below are some case summaries from recent Fifth Circuit Cases regarding search and seizure and confessions.

4th Amendment Search and Seizure

U.S. v. Gray, February 1, 2012

Officers had probable cause to believe that appellant was concealing crack cocaine in his rectum.  After conducting two strip searches, in which appellant was not fully cooperative, an officer told appellant that he could either undergo a third strip search, be placed in a cell with a waterless toilet or he could consent to a rectal x-ray examination.  After appellant refused to consent to any of these options, officers obtained a search warrant in which appellant was forced to submit to a proctoscopic examination under sedation.  A doctor eventually recovered over nine grams of crack cocaine from within appellant.

The court held that the search was unreasonable because it was demeaning and intrusive to appellant’s personal privacy and bodily integrity and that there were less invasive ways to recover the evidence, such as a cathartic or an enema.  However, court held the evidence should not be suppressed because the police acted on good-faith reliance on a valid search warrant. In doing so, the court encouraged magistrates, where feasible, to hold a hearing to allow for more careful consideration of the competing interests at stake in medical procedure search cases.


U.S. v. Hernandez, February 8, 2012

Federal agents received an anonymous tip that appellant was harboring illegal aliens in her trailer.  The agents conducted a knock-and–talk in which they banged on the doors and windows, with their weapons drawn, while demanding entry and then attempted a forced entry by breaking the glass on the door.  When appellant answered the door, she admitted that an illegal alien was inside her trailer.  Agents entered the trailer and arrested appellant and two illegal aliens.  The court held that the agents’ conduct during their knock-and-talk violated the Fourth Amendment.  Since a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred by the time appellant came to the door, the agents could not rely on her admission as probable cause to either enter the trailer or arrest her.

Next, the court held that the incriminating statements appellant made to the agents, after her arrest at their office, were also inadmissible.  They occurred only a few hours after an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and no intervening events occurred to break the connection between her arrest and her statements.
 Finally, the court held that the statements obtained from the two illegal aliens were inadmissible against appellant.  The government offered nothing more than pure speculation that their statements would have been inevitably obtained but even if they had, their statements were not sufficiently separated from the Fourth Amendment violation to make them admissible.

Voluntariness of Confession

U.S. v. Cantu-Ramirez, February 6, 2012

In this multiple defendant case, appellant Lauro Grimaldo argued that the district court should have suppressed his confession because federal agents delayed in presenting him to a magistrate judge for more than two hours for the purpose of interviewing him and obtaining a confession.

The court disagreed after applying the Supreme Court’s guidance from Corley v. United States.  First, because appellant’s presentment was delayed for less than six hours, his confession was admissible as long as it was obtained voluntarily.

Second, based on the totality of the circumstances, the court found that nothing about the interview indicated that his confession was involuntary.  The interview lasted only ninety minutes, the agents wore casual clothing, appellant was not handcuffed and the agents offered him food and drink and allowed him to make several phone calls.  The agents advised appellant of his Miranda rights and took care to ensure that he understood and voluntarily waived them.  The agents obtained appellant’s confession voluntarily and it was properly admitted against him.

Just Saying an Interrogation is "Non-Custodial" Doesn't Make it "Non-Custodial"

United States v. Cavazos is a case out of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal).  It involves an interlocutory appeal by the government after the trial court (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas) suppressed incriminating statements made by the accused prior to receiving his Miranda warnings.

Here's what happened:  Federal agents executed a warrant on the defendant's home between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. searching for evidence that he had sent sexually explicit material to a minor female.  Approximately fourteen agents and officers (that's right, 14 agents and officers!) entered the residence and handcuffed the defendant as he was getting out of bed.  After the home was secured, agents removed the handcuffs and took the defendant to a bedroom for an interview.  Agents told the defendant that it was a “non-custodial” interview, that he was free to get something to eat and drink during it, and that he was free to use the bathroom (they curiously left out the part about him being free to leave and free to not answer their questions and free to seek the advice of counsel, hmmm...).  The agents then began questioning the defendant without reading him his Miranda rights.  The defendant admitted that he had been “sexting” the victim and he described communications he had been having with other minor females. 

At trial, the judge granted the defense motion to suppress the defendant's statements made to the officers during this interrogation.  The trial judge ruled that even though the officers told the defendant that the interrogation was "non-custodial," the facts of the case proved otherwise.

On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the trial court and held that the defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation when the agents questioned him in his home.  As a result, the incriminating statements made by the defendant were properly suppressed. 

A suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or when a there is a restraint on his movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest, even when there is no arrest.  The key question is under the circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.  Here, the court said no.  First, fourteen agents entered the defendant's home, in the early morning, without his consent.  Second, although the defendant was free to use the bathroom or get a snack, when he did, he was followed by the agents and closely monitored.  Third, although the defendant was allowed to use a telephone to call his brother, the agents had him position the phone so they could listen to the conversation.  This indicated the agents’ control over the defendant while implying that he had no privacy.  While the agents told the defendant the interview was “non-custodial,” such a statement made to a reasonable lay-person is not the same as telling him that he can terminate the interrogation and leave. Also, such a statement, made in a person’s home does not have the same effect as if the agents had offered to leave at any time upon request.

Overzealous agents and officers always make for good caselaw.

The Booking-Question Exception: Another Reason to Shut Up

Alford v. State - (Tex. Crim. App.) Feb. 8, 2012

Cecil Edward Alford was charged with evading arrest and detention.  While being transported to jail, Officers noticed that Mr. Alford was squirming around in the back seat.  Once at the jail, officers got Alford out of the car and searched the back seat.  As was procedure, they had searched the back seat of the squad car before their shift started to confirm that there were no items in the back seat.  After searching the back seat of the squad car following Mr. Alford’s transport to jail, officers located a clear plastic bag with pills inside and, directly under the bag, a computer flash drive (“thumb” drive).  As the jailers were booking Alford in, one of the officers took the thumb drive and held it up to Mr. Alford asking what it was.  The officer then asked, “Is it yours?” Alford claimed that it was.  At the time the jailer asked the question, Alford had not been advised of his Miranda rights.

The legal question arising from this situation is whether Alford’s admission that he owned the flash drive could be used against him at his trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeals first analyzed this case by addressing custodial interrogation and the “booking-question exception” to Miranda.  The Court recognized that questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody” or “routine booking questions” are exempt from Miranda. See South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).  The CCA noted that Mr. Alford’s case hinged on whether the question that the officer asked him that night was reasonably related to administrative concerns or if it was a question designed to elicit incriminatory admissions.

The defense presented case law supporting the contention that a question does not necessarily fall within the booking-question exception to Miranda simply because the question was asked during the booking process.  Specifically, the defense cited a footnote at the end of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Muniz that said, “recognizing a ‘booking exception’ to [Miranda] does not mean, of course, that any question asked during the booking process falls within that exception.  Without obtaining a waiver of the suspect’s [Miranda] rights, the police may not ask questions, even during booking, that are designed to elicit incriminatory admissions.” Id at 602, n. 14 (Brennan, J., plurality op.)

The CCA conceded that case law actually supported both the State and the appellant in this case.  Ultimately though, the Court held that the booking-question exception applies when the question reasonably relates to a legitimate administrative concern regardless of whether officer should have known that it might elicit an incriminatory admission.  The Court held that the Officer’s question in Alford’s case had the legitimate interest of identification and storage of an inmate’s property and that the questions regarding the thumb drive did fall within the booking exception to Miranda.

Essentially, the court decided that the relationship between the officer and Alford was not the determining factor.  Even though the Officer that asked Alford the questions was primarily responsible for the investigation, the Court still said that his question at the jail was just a booking question.  To me, this case does not provide any clarity to the booking-question exception to Miranda.  In any case, once a suspect is arrested, an officer could claim his questions are for booking purposes only, even when those questions are eliciting incriminatory admissions – and even if those questions are being asked while still in the field or at the scene.

This case just serves to reinforce what I’ve always advised folks – DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO THE POLICE.  Of course, there are times when talking with a police officer cannot hurt, but if you are under arrest, DO NOT SAY ANYTHING, DO NOT EVEN NOD YOUR HEAD, until you have been provided an attorney.  If you must say something, say this:  "I request an attorney and will not answer any questions until I have been provided an attorney."

Lost in Translation: A Defendant’s Rights to Counsel

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a criminal suspect is guaranteed the right to counsel.  But there’s a difference between what the two amendments provide.  The Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created by the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, where the Court held that a person has the right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation (interrogation counsel).  The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the assistance of counsel for his defense at trial (trial counsel).

Over the past four decades, the jurisprudence concerning the Fifth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation (interrogation counsel) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceedings (trial counsel) had become intertwined in complex and confusing ways. It was increasingly difficult for courts to determine which right can be invoked when and whether invocation of the right to counsel under one amendment invoked the right to counsel under the other amendment.

Pecina v. State, a recent Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case, illustrates the confusion that existed between the two rights to counsel.  In Pecina, Arlington Police officers arrested the defendant for the murder of his wife and took him to the hospital rather than the jail because he had suffered significant stab wounds (allegedly self-inflicted).  Because Mr. Pecina could not be transported to see a magistrate within 48 hours as required by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the police officers brought a magistrate to him.  A bilingual magistrate.  The magistrate advised Mr. Pecina (in Spanish) of his Article 15.17 rights including, inter alia, the right to have an attorney present throughout the criminal trial process (i.e. trial counsel – 6th Amendment).

“After reading appellant his rights, [the magistrate] asked if he wanted a court-appointed attorney.  And he stated that he did.” She then asked Mr. Pecina if he “still wanted to talk to [the detectives]?” He said that he did.  The magistrate (as she later testified) believed that, when Mr. Pecina asked for counsel, he was asking for trial counsel, not interrogation counsel.  The two detectives then entered the hospital room and issued Mr. Pecina his Miranda warnings (in Spanish).  Mr. Pecina waived his Miranda rights, did not request an attorney, and gave a statement.  He was later convicted for murder after his statements to the detectives were admitted against him at trial.

These facts raise important questions:

When Mr. Pecina told the magistrate that he wanted a court-appointed attorney, did he invoke his rights under both the 5th and 6th Amendments? Should the police have refrained from initiating further questioning until he had an attorney present?

Prior to the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, the controlling case regarding the two intertwining rights to counsel was Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986). “In Michigan v. Jackson, the Supreme Court had held that ‘if police initiate interrogation after a defendant’s assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid.’"

Under Michigan v. Jackson, Mr. Pecina’s assertion of his right to counsel that he made to the magistrate in the hospital would have been enough to preclude the police from initiating further interrogation. Or, if the police did later initiate interrogation, any statement Mr. Pecina made should have been suppressed at trial.

But all of that changed under Montejo in 2009. In Montejo, the Supreme Court disentangled the right to interrogation counsel with the right to trial counsel.

Distilled to its essence, Montejo means that a defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel at his Article 15.17 hearing says nothing about his possible invocation of his right to counsel during later police-initiated custodial interrogation. The magistration hearing is not an interrogation event.

Analyzing the Pecina case in the wake of Montejo, the CCA explained that “[i]n this case, there were two separate events: magistration followed by a custodial interrogation.” The CCA then held that “under the totality of the circumstances…an objective and reasonable police officer, conducting a custodial interrogation would conclude that appellant had voluntarily waived both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel for the purposes of custodial questioning.”

The CCA went further to clarify the new rule, explaining that under the Supreme Court decisions in Montejo, Miranda, Edwards, and Minnick, a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights (to interrogation counsel) are only triggered “AFTER THE POLICE INFORM HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT THE BEGINNING OF A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.” Emphasis added.  Ultimately, the CCA held that the magistration hearing (in which Mr. Pecina requested an attorney) did not trigger any Fifth Amendment right concerning custodial interrogation; that, the CCA explained, was done by the detectives at the beginning of their interrogation.

PRACTICE NOTE: A criminal defendant/suspect must now request an attorney, unequivocally, at every stage of the criminal justice process.  Interrogation.  Arraignment.  Magistration.  Every stage.  This is a significant change in Texas criminal procedure.

Judge Alcala joined the majority opinion but wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which she notes:

The magistrate’s interpretation (that Mr. Pecina only requested trial counsel and not interrogation counsel) misses the whole point of the warning, which is the right to have an attorney present ‘during any interview with peace officers.’ I conclude that the record indisputably shows that appellant’s request for an attorney was a request to have an attorney present during interrogation, as well as during court proceedings. …Appellant’s request for an attorney was, at most, a pre-invocation of his right to counsel.

Judge Alcala believes that the “Legislature could easily fix [the confusion between the two rights to counsel] by adding one sentence to the Article 15.17 admonishments: ‘If you desire to have an attorney present during police interrogation, you must make that request at the time of the police questioning.’”

Judge Price dissented, opining that “[a]ny reasonably objective viewer would conclude from the peculiar facts of this case that [the magistrate] was acting as a de facto agent of the interrogating detectives." He went further:

That the invocation [of Mr. Pecina’s rights] also occurred during a simultaneous “magistration,” while accurate, does not detract from its essential character for Fifth Amendment purposes. And once a suspect has made it clear that he desires the assistance of counsel in coping with police interrogation, we are not entitled to look at his subsequent responses to official entreaties “to determine in retrospect whether the suspect really meant it when he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel.”

Judge Price believes that Mr. Pecina's Fifth Amendment right to interrogation counsel was violated.  I agree.

An Ambiguous Request is No Request at All

In a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Federal), the court considered whether police interrogation of a suspect violated the suspect's constitutional right to have an attorney present when the suspect voluntarily continued the conversation with the officers.

U.S. v. Carillo - While the defendant was in jail on a parole violation, officers went to interview him about his involvement in a drug distribution conspiracy.  After being read his Miranda rights, the defendant invoked his right not to be questioned without an attorney present.  The officers stopped talking to him and left.  The next day the defendant told jailers that he wished to speak to the officers from the day before.  The officers returned to the jail, advised him of his Miranda rights, which then led to a discussion about the defendant's right to an attorney.  The defendant made three comments during this time.  He told the officers, “I wish I had a lawyer right here," "I wanted to see if we could push this thing to where I could get my lawyer," and "I wanted to see if you could work with me and push this deal to where I can get a lawyer and just sit down and talk about it." After one of the officers told the defendant that he would get an attorney at his arraignment, the defendant asked the officer what would happen if he agreed to talk to the officer now.  The kind and helpful officer told the defendant that he would just be cooperating and helping himself and once he got into the federal system he would get an attorney.  Hearing those words of encouragement, the defendant agreed to talk to the officers and (of course) made several incriminating statements, which led to his conviction.

On appeal, the appellant contended that his confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his constitutional right not to be interrogated while in police custody without an attorney present, under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

The 5th Circuit recognized that the defendant's three comments, when viewed separately, appeared to indicate that he was invoking his right to counsel.  However, the Court held that when considering the entire context in which the defendant made the comments, a reasonable police officer would not have understood him to be saying that he wanted to stop talking with the police without an attorney present.  The court held that the defendant's comments to the officers were ambiguous at best.  They expressed the defendant's preference to have an attorney present, however, the fact that he kept talking to the officers indicated that he also wished to keep the interview going and not to end it by invoking his right to counsel.  The defendant re-initiated communication with the officers after he ended the interview the day before by invoking his right to counsel, so he was clearly aware of how he could end the interview.  The defendant was merely weighing the pros and cons of talking to the officers without an attorney present which he eventually decided to do.

Search of a Passenger's Handbag Violates 4th Amendment

U.S. v. Cantu is an interesting case with 4th and 5th Amendment issues coming out the Fifth Circuit. Of course, it’s an unpublished opinion, so it has no precedential value, but it’s a good case on federal criminal procedure.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) held that an officer’s warrantless search of Appellant’s handbags, during a traffic stop, violated the Fourth Amendment. Although the driver consented to search of the vehicle, he had neither the actual nor the apparent authority to consent to a search of his passenger’s property. The officer had no authority to search inside Appellant’s closed bags without her consent, which he neither sought nor obtained, and he knew the bags he was searching belonged to her.

After Appellant’s arrest, while being transported to jail, she made incriminating statements to the officer, without having been properly Mirandized. Approximately 4.5 hours later, DEA agents met with Appellant, Mirandized her, obtained a valid waiver and obtained a written confession from her.

The court held that the DEA interrogation and resulting confession were not tainted by the arresting officer’s earlier Miranda violation while transporting Appellant to the jail. There was little continuity between the two interrogations. The arresting officer asked his questions in his patrol car, while different personnel working for a different agency conducted the later DEA interview in a different location. There was a 4.5-hour break between the two interrogations and the DEA agents, in their interview, did not exploit or refer back to Appellant’s earlier statements.

Additionally, the court refused to suppress Appellant’s written confession to the DEA agents based on the arresting officer’s illegal search of her bags. The court held that the illegality of the search was clear however, the connection between the evidence it produced and Appellant’s confession to the DEA agents was weak. There was nothing to indicate that the discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the bags compelled Appellant to confess to possession of a large quantity of cocaine later found hidden in the vehicle. Further, Appellant was provided Miranda warnings, interviewed by different officers from a different agency and approximately seven hours had passed between the search of Cantu’s purse and the receipt of her written confession.

The full circumstances of the DEA interrogation served to purge the taint of the earlier illegal search.

To read the full case, click HERE.

No Valentine's Day Present for Appellant's Girlfriend

After being convicted of aiding and abetting mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, Appellant, Lonnie Oliver Jr., challenged those convictions, arguing that federal agents illegally searched the contents of a cardboard box given to them by his girlfriend and that his statements to police officers were not voluntary.

Appellant left an unsecured cardboard box, which contained ample evidence of his identity theft operation, in the dining room of his girlfriend's apartment. When agents interviewed the girlfriend, she gave them the box, but did not tell them she had already examined its contents. The court held that the girlfriend’s search of the box destroyed Appellant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and rendered the subsequent warrantless police search permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that the girlfriend’s search made the agents’ warrantless search permissible, regardless of whether the agents knew about it. The court cautioned that his holding was limited to the unique facts of this case and was not intended to expand significantly the scope of the private search doctrine.

Appellant also argued that incriminating statements he made to the agents during his custodial interrogation should have been suppressed, claiming that he had not waived his Miranda rights. After agents arrested Appellant, they advised him of his Miranda rights and provided him two forms. Appellant signed the first form acknowledging that he understood his rights, but he refused to sign the second form waiving those rights. Nevertheless, Appellant told the agents that he wished to answer their questions and he confessed to his role in a mail fraud and identity theft scheme.

The Court explained that suspect may waive his Miranda rights if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The mere refusal to sign a written Miranda waiver does not automatically make subsequent statements by a defendant inadmissible. The court held that the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s arrest and interview established that Appellant’s waiver was voluntary, even though he refused to sign the wavier form. Specifically: (1) agents provided Appellant with a copy of the Miranda warning waiver form and read it aloud to him as he followed along, (2) Appellant expressly told the agents that although he would not sign the Miranda waiver form, he would discuss the fraud scheme, (3) Appellant never requested an attorney, (4) Appellant was articulate, coherent and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and appeared to understand what was going on, (5) Appellant clearly understood his rights since he signed the first form that acknowledged this, and he had extensive experience with the criminal justice system, and (6) Appellant was not coerced in any way during the interview.

"No Hablo Ingles"

Contreras v. State,

A Mexican citizen was convicted in Denton County for intoxication assault and failure to stop and render aid.  On appeal, he lodged a Miranda-esque complaint, contending that the trial court erred by not suppressing statements he made after being arrested but before being informed of his rights as a Mexican citizen to contact the Mexican consulate.  After contacting officials in Arizona for advice on immigrataion policy, the 11th District Court of Appeals (Eastland) rejected the Appellant's argument and affirmed the conviction.  (Of course, I am only kidding about the Arizona thing, but the court really did affirm the conviction.)

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations grants foreign nationals who have been arrested, imprisoned, or taken into custody the right to contact their consulate and requires the arresting government authorities to inform the individual of this right “without delay.”

Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).  Notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Vienna Convention does not control Texas or national law (Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)), the Appellant asserts that he was denied procedural due process and as a result, any statements he made prior to being afforded his right to contact his consulate should be suppressed.

The 11th Court, however, refused to recognize any Due Process right in this instance, stating:

...because the Vienna Convention was drafted to govern relations between sovereign nations and foreign consular officials, Sierra v. State, 218 S.W.3d 85, 86-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), we do not believe that its language creates a substantive right sufficient to implicate the constitutionally required procedures police officers must follow before interrogating a foreign national.  Moreover, courts have not read the treaty to require notification before instituting any police interrogation, but only within three working days of the arrest. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 362 (2006) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) (citing Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 52 ¶ 97 (Judgment of Mar. 31)).  Thus, even if we are in error and the Vienna Convention does create a benefit enforceable under the Due Process Clause, we do not believe that this required the police to inform Contreras of the right to contact his consulate before beginning a custodial interrogation.

Just in case the court misinterpreted the law regarding foreign relations, the Court further explained that:

Even if we are in error, Contreras is not entitled to the suppression of any evidence. The Supreme Court has held that suppression under the federal exclusionary rule is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Vienna Convention.  Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U.S. at 350. In Rocha, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the exclusionary rule under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.23 (Vernon 2005) does not provide a remedy for violations of treaties, including the Vienna Convention.  Rocha, 16 S.W.3d at 18-19. The trial court, therefore, did not err in admitting Contreras’s statements.

So the takeway from this case is that  (in Texas) foreign nationals are not afforded any enhanced procedural due process right to contact their consulate prior to being questioned by police officers.  Of course, Miranda would still apply (perhaps, even in Arizona), but there is no further right created by the Vienna Convention and evidence will not be suppressed for failure to follow its mandates.

A Good Custodial Interrogation String Cite

Everybody loves a good string cite.  You know, when the court wants to consolidate lots of authority for its position, but doesn't actually want to write about the cases, so it simply lists a string of case citations with a parenthetical one-line synopsis of the relevant holding.  In reading Campbell v. State, yesterday, a case out of the 2nd District (Fort Worth) regarding custodial versus non-custodial interrogations and Miranda warnings in a DWI context, I came across a good string cite and I thought I'd share it. 

To give some context, the court is in the process of determining whether Appellant's statements to police officers both prior to and after being placed in handcuffs should be excluded under article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure or Miranda, when it provided this smattering of applicable Texas caselaw on the subject:

• Alford v. State, 22 S.W.3d 669, 671–72 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth2000, pet. ref’d) holding that appellant was in custody when he was stopped, placedon the ground, and handcuffed, and his response, that he had had six beers, whenasked if he had been drinking by an officer who arrived on the scene seven minutes later, should have been suppressed since he was not given his Miranda warnings;
• Jordy v. State, 969 S.W.2d 528, 531–32 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) holding that appellant was subjected to a custodial interrogation following a traffic accident when he laid down on the ground and the officer called an ambulance before asking appellant how much he had had to drink, to which appellant replied,“A lot.”
• Rhodes v. State, 945 S.W.2d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App.) cert. denied, 522 U.S. 894 (1997) holding that incident was temporary investigative detention when officer testified at suppression hearing that he was not arresting Rhodes when he handcuffed him and that he handcuffed him primarily out of concern for officer safety—it was dark, the area was high-crime, and officer was alone with suspect;
• Arthur v. State, 216 S.W.3d 50, 53, 57–58 (Tex. App. --Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) holding that appellant’s statements were not a product of custodial interrogation when officer saw appellant’s vehicle drifting and speeding, initiated a traffic stop and asked some questions about whether she had had anything to drink which she answered inconsistently and in a loud, moderately slurred voice and administered three sobriety tests and a portable breath test before arresting her;
• Hernandez v. State,107 S.W.3d 41, 47–48 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d) concluding that appellant’s statement that he had consumed nine beers was made during investigatory detention after officer saw appellant speeding and weaving between lanes without signaling, pulled him over, noticed the smell of alcohol and appellant’s bloodshot eyes, and administered three field sobriety tests, all prior to full custodial arrest;
• Wappler v. State, 104 S.W.3d 661, 668 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]2003) concluding that it was reasonable for the officer to secure appellant in handcuffs when appellant was uncooperative and belligerent, so that officer could complete his DWI investigation, rev’d on other grounds, 138 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004);
• Lewis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 704, 708–13 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002,pet. ref’d) distinguishing Jordy and Alford as presenting “other circumstances”requiring Miranda when their facts went beyond the roadside questioning and sobriety tests found in DWI temporary investigation cases.

There you have it.  If you have a custodial interrogation issue in a DWI case, you now have a jumpstart on your legal research.  Thank you 2nd Court of Appeals.

Keeping a Promise

I'm up to my ears in published cases from the various Texas Courts of Appeals.  Maybe I never should have promised to post about every published case.  Or maybe I shouldn't have taken such a long break when baby #2 came along last month.  Regardless, I promised and now I need to do a bit of housecleaning in order to keep pace with all of the recent published opinions.  Here are a few from last week:

Wilson v. State, Tex. Crim. App. (Delivered  June 9, 2010) - CCA upheld Court of Appeals decision even though the Court of Appeals based its holding on a Penal Code section under which Appellant did not preserve error, but was closely related to the section for which he did preserve error.  To remand the case and end up with the same result, would have been an exercise in futility, so it appears the Court based its ruling more on judicial economy than law.

Rivera v. State, 7th Dist - Amarillo (Delivered June 8, 2010) - Explaining that Appellant had the burden to prove his counsel was ineffective, the Court held that trial defense counsel is not required to make arrangements for the defendant to view and/or listen to electronically recorded evidence prior to his guilty plea.  A good quote from this Per Curiam opinion:

Doing that which may be considered laughable, silly, unintelligent or insulting need not be done for counsel to be effective, and deciding whether to tender witnesses willing to say that appellant can be a good guy when he is not selling drugs and assaulting people seems to fall within that realm.

Griffith v. State, 11th Dist - Eastland (Delivered June 10, 2010) - Court affirmed manslaughter conviction.  Appellant acted recklessly when he drove his vehicle while intoxicated.  A defendant need not be aware of the specific risk of another's death to be guilty of manslaughter.

Steadman v. State, 11th Dist - Eastland (Delivered June 10, 2010) - The Court upheld the ruling of the trial court allowing a police officer to testify that the defendant "neither admitted nor denied" that he committed the offense during pre-arrest/pre-interrogation interview with police.  The Court had to stretch for this opinion, but here's what it came up with:

We hold...that pre-arrest silence of a defendant who has not received any Miranda warnings “is a constitutionally permissible area of inquiry.” We further hold that Steadman‟s pre-arrest/pre-Miranda silence was not the result either of interrogation or of his being compelled to be a witness against himself. Our holding is not to be taken to address those situations that involve comments upon a defendant‟s post-arrest/pre-Miranda silence or those involving silence during interrogation. We issue no holdings in connection with those issues.

Okay, there's a few cases.  I may have to do a couple more posts like this one to catch up.  Please bear with me.

Police Coerce Suspect to Confess But Court Refuses to Instruct Jury Accordingly

Contreras v. State - a long opinion, but a great read.

Let me set the scene.  A baby is dead.  Appellant was the only person babysitting when the baby died.  The police invite Appellant to make a statement. They give him his Miranda warnings and he waives.  Appellant states that the baby fell off the couch, but was alive and well when he put her to bed.  The medical examiner then conducts an autopsy and discovers what appears to be severe chest wounds caused by blunt force trauma.  The police then invite Appellant to make another statement.  They, once again, read him his Miranda warnings...this is where the story diverges.

According to the detective, during the second interview, "appellant never invoked any of his rights." Additionally, "no threats or promises were made to appellant, nor did the officers threaten any members of appellant’s family."  The Appellant then confessed to murdering the baby.

 On the contrary, Appellant testified that the detectives "kept yelling and jumping in, banging his hand on the desk" and "getting in Appellant's face."  Appellant further testified that they threatened to blame the entire thing on Appellant's wife if he did not confess, saying "C'mon, you're not going to let your wife go to jail for something you did" and "Well, if it wasn't you, then your wife must have done it."  Appellant, who wasn't under arrest at the time, then asked to speak with his family members and the detectives declined to let him go.  Appellant then said, "I need to speak with an attorney," to which the detectives responded thusly:

Come on, Saul. You’re just being selfish. We can’t let you do that. If you do that, then we won’t be able to talk to the Assistant D.A.’s on your behalf. We know you have a clean record. We know you’re a good guy. With your clean record, you’ll probably get a bond and be out by Monday, and then you can straighten all this out.

Finally, Appellant testified, the officers' tactics caused him to confess:

Like I said, I was tired, exhausted. I didn’t want my wife to go to jail. I didn’t want them to take our kids away. I wanted to get out of that room. I wanted to talk to my family, and they weren’t letting me do that until I said what they were saying.

Despite the conflicting nature of the testimony, the trial court refused to provide an appropriate instruction to the jury pursuant to Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides, in relevant part:

No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.

In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals instructs that "the trial court has a duty to give an article 38.23 instruction sua sponte (on its own) if 3 requirements are met:

1. Evidence heard by the jury raises an issue of fact (true in this case); 
2. The evidence on that fact is affirmatively contested (true again); and
3. The contested factual issue is material to the lawfulness of the challenged conduct in obtaining the statement claimed to be involuntary (bingo).

Accurately citing this standard, the lower court (8th Court of Appeals - El Paso) simply said that it was undisputed that Appellant received Miranda warnings and completely disregarded the other alleged egregious conduct by the detectives. 

Not willing to sweep such unconsionable interrogation tactics under the rug, the CCA reversed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the evidence did raise a fact issue regarding whether a threat to arrest and prosecute Appellant's wife rendered his confession involuntary under due process and that the trial judge should have so instructed the jury under article 38.23.  The only problem now is that the CCA remanded the case back to the 8th Court for a harm analysis, so we can bet that this conviction will stand - a shallow and temporary victory for the Appellant in the interim.

An interesting side note - Presiding Judge Keller went off on a bit of a tangent on page 26 of the opinion regarding the logical disconnect between a Miranda challenge and a constitutional challenge under article 38.23.  Not exactly germane to the case, but interesting nonetheless.

Voir Dire, Miranda, and Interrogations

Here are a few tidbits from the recent 11th District Court of Appeals decision in Gately v. State. Sorry, no time for analysis, but thought the following holdings might interest you.  Not anything new, just good reminders.

To Preserve Error During Voir Dire Your Must Strike the Complained-of VenireMember -

To preserve error on a trial court’s denial of a challenge for cause, an appellant must take the following steps: (1) assert a clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) use a peremptory strike on the complained-of veniremember; (3) exhaust his peremptory strikes; (4) request additional peremptory strikes; (5) identify an objectionable juror; and (6) claim that he would have struck the objectionable juror with a peremptory strike if he had one to use.  Because appellant did not use a peremptory strike on Northcutt, appellant failed to preserve error on his first issue.

Miranda Waivers Need Not Be Express to be Effective -

However, appellant argued that the statement was inadmissible because he did not expressly waive his right to counsel.  Neither a written nor an oral express waiver is required to support a finding that an accused waived his Miranda rights.  A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.  However, a waiver need not assume a particular form, and in some cases, a “waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.”  The question is not whether an accused “explicitly” waived his Miranda rights, but whether he did so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.  Whether an accused waived his Miranda rights is determined from the totality of the circumstances.

A Suspect's Invocation of his Constitutional Right to Remain Silent, however, Must be Express -

A police officer need not stop questioning a suspect unless the suspect’s invocation of rights is unambiguous. The officer is not required to clarify ambiguous remarks.

Cops Have No Duty to Clarify Suspect's "Vague" Request for an Attorney

Officer:  "I want you to write out a statement regarding what you know about the robberies."

Suspect:  "Maybe I should get an attorney for this."

Officer: ...(nothing spoken, but likely thinking to himself - "Hmm, if I don't say anything, maybe he'll forget about the attorney and give us the statement" - according to me).

Well, the Government Agent was right.  The suspect entered a written confession and his statements were later used against him in his trial (and conviction) for multiple counts of bank robbery in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  On 26 March, the 5th Circuit upheld the admissibility of his written confession and affirmed the conviction.  See U.S. v. Montes.

In a concise statement of law, the 5th Circuit ensured law enforcement officers that they have no duty other than to give the minimum warnings required by Miranda:

It is black letter law that when a suspect who is subject to custodial interrogation exercises his right to counsel, law enforcement officers must cease questioning until counsel is made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the officers. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86 (1981). Generally, an invocation by a suspect of his right to counsel that is ignored by law enforcement officers requires that the suspect’s statements made after the request be excluded by the trial court. Id. If a suspect, however, makes an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney there is no requirement that law enforcement cease questioning. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994) (holding that an ambiguous reference to counsel does not invoke the right to an attorney); see also United States v. Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531, 535-37 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, the investigator conducting the questioning has no obligation to attempt to clarify the ambiguous comment of the accused. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461. Thus, “law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney.” Id.

I guess if you really think about it - why would we ever want a suspect to really know what his rights are or how he can invoke them? (Insert sarcasm here).  I understand that law enforcement officers are out to catch the bad guys, so naturally I would not expect them to want to assist a suspect in this area, but couldn't it be a sign that the prior Miranda warnings were not given effectively if the suspect indicates a lack of understanding?  

The officers in this case testified unequivocally that the request for an attorney was “vague” and “wasn’t a demand;” [the suspect] never “affirmatively sa[id] he wanted an attorney.” Despite the suspect's contrary testimony, the district court found that since he did not clearly invoke his right to counsel, as required, his post-arrest statements made after his ambiguous request for an attorney were admissible.

Seriously, how hard would it have been for the officers to clarify whether the suspect was asking for an attorney?  If you'll indulge me, let's see:

Officer:  When you say that 'Maybe you need an attorney,' are you asking for an attorney?

Suspect:  No (probably).

Wow, that didn't take long.  After that exchange, there would be no issue at trial (or on appeal).  In my mind the government should not only seek justice, but it should seek to maintain the appearance of justice.  Allowing officers to simply disregard a comment by a suspect about his right to an attorney because (in the officer's mind) the statement is "vague" misses the mark on the appearance of justice.

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in Miranda Case on Monday 3/1/10

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Berghuis v. Thompkins (See SCOTUS Wiki page HERE).  In short, the Court will consider whether a criminal defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights when he is given a Miranda warning and verbally acknowledges that he understands his rights, but he neither invokes nor waives them explicitly.


This is much like the issue recently considered by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Joseph (see my post HERE).


The oral arguments should be available on OYEZ tomorrow.

Quit Being Coy - Just Ask the Suspect if He is Willing to Waive His Rights?

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released its opinion in State v. Joseph, regarding the voluntariness of a statement.  In Joseph, the appellant argued that although he signed the rights warning card provided him by the San Antonio police officer, he did not waive his rights and, even if he did waive his rights, the waiver was not voluntary.

The Court went into considerable detail regarding Miranda and its relation to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - particularly regarding when a statement is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.  In fact, if you are in need of a refresher on the law in this area, this case would be a good read.

However, the interesting portion I pulled from the case came in the second concurring opinion authored by Judge Cochran, which Judges Price, Johnson, and Holcomb joined, wherein they suggest a better practice for law enforcement in the area of Miranda warnings.

I write separately to note a rising trend in which Texas law-enforcement officers fail to explicitly ask a suspect if he is willing to give up his Miranda rights and speak to them. This question, if answered affirmatively, results in an express waiver. The failure to ask one additional, simple question has dramatically increased trial and appellate litigation and needlessly jeopardizes the admissibility of a suspect’s subsequently obtained statement.

Maybe officers don't want to know the answer to the additional question?  I doubt this plea from the Court results in any changes across the law enforcement community throughout the State.  We'll see.

Read majority opinion HERE.  Concurring opinion #1 (Keller) HERE.  Concurring opinion #2 (Cochran) HERE.

SCOTUS Decides Maryland v. Shatzer, limiting Edwards v. Arizona - Police May Resume Questioning After 2 Week Break

A case of great significance to criminal law practicioners. The Supreme Court of the United States released its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer today - limiting its 1981 holding in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, that police terminate questioning after a suspect asks for an attorney.

Held: "Because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at inter-rogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his 2006 statements." Pp. 4-18

Read full opinion HERE.

When does a "Friendly Interview" become a "Custodial Interrogation?"

Texas Law enforcement is quite fond of the "friendly interview" (a.k.a. noncustodial interrogation) with crime suspects.  Many convictions are achieved through evidence that is gathered using this technique.  But when does a friendly interview become a custodial interrogation, thus triggering a person's constitutional rights?  More specifically, as the 13th District Court of Appeals considered in State v. Vasquez, when must a person's request for counsel be honored and the interrogation be terminated?

In Vasquez, the defendant, who had been a suspect in a murder case, voluntarily accompanied police officers to the station for additional questioning.  This occurred 4 years after the crime and initial interview of the defendant had taken place.  As found by the trial court, the defendant repeatedly requested his lawyer whom he had retained 4 years prior, when the case first arose.  Despite the defendant's requests for counsel, the police continued the interrogation and obtained an incriminatory statement.  In opposition to the defense motion to suppress the statement, the State argued that interrogation was not "custodial."  The trial court granted the motion to suppress.

In affirming the trial court's order granting the Motion to Suppress, the 13th District Court of Appeals, relying entirely on precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, held:

"A person is in custody if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest."  Dowhitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

"When a person voluntarily accompanies officers to an interview, and he knows or should know that the police officers suspect he may be implicated in the crime under investigation, he is not 'restrained of movement' and is not in custody.  Shiflet v. State, 732 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).  However, and interview that begins as noncustodial may escalate into a custodial interrogation because of police conduct during the encounter.  Dowhitt at 255.

In determining whether a custodial interrogation, the Court examined the totality of the circumstances in light of the four factors discussed in Dowhitt, which are:

1. if the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way;
2. if law enforcement officers tell a suspect that he cannot leave;
3. if law enforcement officers create a situation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his freedom of movement has been significantly restricted (such as reading him his Miranda warnings); or 
4. if there is probable cause to arrest and law enforcement officers do not tell the suspect that his is free to leave.  

Applying the law to a view of the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, the Court held that "there is some evidence to support an implicit finding that Vasquez was physically deprived of his freedom of action in a significant was by not being provided the retained counsel that he repeatedly requested."  The Court further held that:

"an innocent person in Vasquez's position who was: (1) approached at home by two sheriff's deputies and told that he 'had to go' with them, without reference to the matter in question. (2) taken to a sheriff's department office, (3) Mirandized, (4) questioned by three officers, (5) repeatedly told, against his belief, that he was no longer represented by a retained counsel, and (6) questioned after his repeated requests for retained counsel, would have believed he was in custody."

Accordingly, the order granting the motion to suppress was affirmed.

As you can see, this area of law is very fact dependent and as such, the decision of the trial court with be given considerable deference. If the trial court had denied the motion to suppress, the appellate court could have probably crafted an opinion affirming the denial.

LWOP Upheld for Juvenile Capital Murder Case

The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio), who, by the way, issues the most aesthetically pleasing opinions, just upheld a Cruel and Unusual Punishment challenge Texas' sentencing scheme (pre-Sept 1, 2009) that imposed a mandatory life without parole (LWOP) punishment on a juvenile capital murder offender.  Meadoux v. State.

Appellant (16 years old), who was questioned for over an hour at the police station, ultimately confessed to killing his 2 friends (accidentally, of course).  The police officers never advised Appellant of his Miranda rights, maintaining that he was could terminate the "interview" and leave anytime he wished.  Accordingly, Appellant challenged, at trial and on appeal, the admission of his incriminating statement, as well as the Texas sentencing scheme of mandatory LWOP.

After a lengthy (and intriguing) recitation of the facts of the case, the Court spent another 11 pages discussing what is well-established precedent.  "Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's ruling" the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court that Appellant was not "in custody" and therefore, the officers were not required to read him his Miranda rights.  Furthermore, because Appellant was not "in custody" the trial court did not have to submit a question to the jury regarding whether the confession was "voluntary."

If you want a crash course on juvenile criminal procedure, including the admissibility of statements, whether an interrogation is "custodial" and whether Miranda warnings are required, check out the full text of the case here.  Justice Speedlin does an excellent job in her presentation of the law and application of the facts.  Really, in my view, it could have gone either way at the trial level, but once the trial judge has spoken, it would have been a stretch for the appellate court to deviate.

I see all of this as a side issue, because, for me (and possibly the CCA), the thrust of this case was the issue of the constitutionality of mandatory LWOP for juvenile capital murder offenders.  I hate that the Court gave such little attention to this issue (4 measly pages).  As the Court notes, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on the question of whether LWOP for a non-homicide offense committed by a juvenile is "cruel and unusual." Sullivan and Graham.

I know what you are thinking... "the Supremes are only considering the constitutionality of LWOP for a non-homicide offense and they will not likely extend any opinion beyond the issue presented."  Right you are, but if (and that's a big IF) they hold that LWOP for a juvenile is unconstitutional as it applies to non-homicide offenses, we are only a small step (and a slight shift in public opinion or court ideological makeup) away from LWOP being unconstitutional for all juvenile cases.  If you'll remember, it wasn't too long ago that a state could execute a mentally retarded person.

This hardly stands to cause a big fuss in Texas, because, as you may know, Texas recently amended section 12.31(a) of the penal code which now requires a mandatory Life sentence for juvenile cases rather than LWOP.  But be on the lookout for U.S. Supreme Court opinions embracing this issue (Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida), for, while they are unlikely to affect current TX cases, they could bring on a firestorm of habeus petitions.