Arturo Verdin v. Bryan Phillips
22-55335
| 9th Cir. | Sep 16, 2024Background
- Arturo Rosales Verdin was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder and attempted murder.
- During an August 2007 police interrogation, after receiving Miranda warnings and waiving his rights, Verdin made an ambiguous statement about remaining silent and expressed frustration with one of the detectives.
- The California Court of Appeal held that Verdin's statement was not an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent and upheld the admission of his statements.
- Verdin filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that admitting these statements violated Miranda principles and clearly established federal law.
- The federal district court denied the petition, and Verdin appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Verdin unambiguously invoked his right to silence | Verdin invoked his right by stating, "I'm not gonna answer you anything anymore" | His statement was ambiguous, expressing frustration, not a clear invocation to Detective Sica | Statement was ambiguous; admission was permissible |
| Applicability of Jones v. Harrington to this case | The state court violated precedent by deeming the invocation ambiguous | Jones is not controlling; only Supreme Court precedent applies and facts differ | Jones does not control; no Supreme Court precedent violated |
| Whether police conduct post-invocation violated Miranda | Detective Sica's "that's a mistake" comment sought to elicit an incriminating response after invocation | No unambiguous invocation occurred, so interrogation could proceed | No Miranda violation; interrogation allowed |
| Request to speak with co-defendant as invocation | Requesting to speak with co-defendant is like requesting counsel under Miranda | Miranda does not treat requests to speak with non-lawyers as rights invocations | No violation; no Supreme Court authority supports argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established requirements for warning about rights prior to custodial interrogation)
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1984) (clarified that post-request responses cannot cast doubt on clarity of initial Miranda invocation)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (defined 'interrogation' under Miranda)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1979) (request to speak to probation officer is not the same as invoking Fifth Amendment rights)