Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order suppressing statements made by Edward Gonzalez after he invoked his right to counsel during a police interrogation. The court held that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez reinitiated communication with police and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The court deferred to the motion judge’s factual findings and credibility determinations regarding the unrecorded period between the two interviews.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez reinitiated communication with police after invoking his right to counsel and thereafter knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights.
- What standard of appellate review applies to a motion judge's factual findings, credibility determinations, inferences, and constitutional conclusions in ruling on a motion to suppress.
- Whether the officers violated Gonzalez's statutory right to a telephone call under G. L. c. 276, § 33A.
Holdings
- The Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez reinitiated communication with police after invoking his right to counsel and thereafter made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. The suppression order was therefore properly allowed.
- An appellate court must defer to subsidiary factual findings, credibility determinations, and reasonable testimonial inferences that are not clearly erroneous, while independently reviewing the application of constitutional principles and legal conclusions.
Key quotations
“Questioning may not resume until an attorney is obtained for the suspect and is present, or the suspect initiates "further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” (at 18)
“It is not enough to show that a defendant agreed to speak to police after a repetition of the Miranda warnings.” (at 18-19)
“In sum, we discern no error in the judge's determination that the Commonwealth has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the events following the defendant's initial invocation of the right to counsel indicate a subsequent voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment.” (at 23-24)
Factual background
After his arrest for murder and unlawful firearm possession, Gonzalez initially waived his Miranda rights and spoke with Springfield police. During the interview, after officers used aggressive and profane language, Gonzalez repeatedly requested to speak with a lawyer, and the interview was terminated. He remained in the interrogation room for approximately forty-five minutes with a Spanish-speaking detective, during which time an unrecorded conversation occurred; he then agreed to a second interview after Miranda warnings were repeated. The Superior Court judge found that the Commonwealth had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez had reinitiated communication or voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
Procedural history
Indictments were returned in the Superior Court Department on July 22, 2016. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, a Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress statements made after invocation of the right to counsel. A single justice allowed the Commonwealth's interlocutory appeal to proceed in the Appeals Court, which reversed the suppression order. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and affirmed the suppression order.