Carlos I. Nunez v. State of Indiana, 43 N.E.3d 680

In Dec. 2012 Carlos I. Nunez was charged with class B felony rape and waived jury trial by signing English and Spanish waiver forms and participating in a court colloquy with an interpreter.
The English waiver expressly stated the right to a jury, jury composition and unanimity, that the judge would decide guilt if waived, and contained declarations that no promises or threats induced the waiver and that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily; both defendant and counsel signed it.
The Spanish waiver mirrored much of the English form but omitted two specific declarations: (1) that no promises or threats coerced the waiver, and (2) that the waiver was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made.
At the bench hearing the judge asked Nunez (through an interpreter) whether he had signed the waivers, understood he was giving up a jury, and whether he had questions; Nunez answered affirmatively and had no questions. The trial court accepted the waiver, convicted Nunez after a bench trial, and sentenced him to ten years.
On appeal Nunez argued the waiver was not voluntary and intelligent because the Spanish form lacked the two declarations; the State did not contest appellate review of the issue.
The Court of Appeals examined jurisprudence about waiver requirements and allocation of the burden to show unfairness or coercion, and affirmed the conviction while noting avenues (e.g., coram nobis) remain open if actual evidence of coercion or misapprehension exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly accepted Nunez’s jury-waiver because the Spanish form omitted declarations that no promises/threats coerced the waiver and that the waiver was knowing/voluntary	State: The waiver was valid because the court conducted an on-the-record colloquy with an interpreter and the signed English form contained the missing declarations	Nunez: The Spanish form’s omissions meant he did not affirmatively state the waiver was voluntary and intelligent, so the waiver was invalid	Court: Affirmed — absent evidence of coercion/ignorance, the defendant bears the burden to show the waiver was involuntary; colloquy and signed forms sufficed; relief remains available if actual coercion is later shown

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (convictions based on guilty pleas require an affirmative record showing waiver of trial-related rights)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (voluntariness and intelligence of plea must be demonstrated; protection against plea induced by ignorance or coercion)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (burden on challenger to demonstrate essential unfairness when seeking to set aside a conviction)
United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (federal standards for waiver of jury trial: writing, government consent, court acceptance, and voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
Sowell v. Bradshaw, 372 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears burden to show jury-waiver was invalid absent record evidence of coercion)
United States ex rel. Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1983) (waiver is valid where defendant understood choice between jury and judge determination)