Commonwealth v. Clarke
461 Mass. 336
Mass.2012Background
- Defendant was arrested by MBTA transit police for indecent assault and battery and taken to an interrogation room with video recording planned.
- Detectives provided a Miranda waiver form, reviewed rights verbally, then asked if he wanted to discuss the charges; the defendant responded to questions about speaking.
- The defendant made a head movement—shaking his head negatively—when asked, “So you don’t want to speak?”; the detective interpreted this as a desire not to speak.
- Lyles believed the headshake did not clearly indicate a wish to remain silent and continued questioning, explaining potential consequences and detention.
- The defendant signed the waiver to talk after further dialogue but the remainder of interrogation was not recorded; he later admitted brushing against a man on the subway.
- A motion to suppress the incriminating statements was granted in the Boston Municipal Court, and the Commonwealth sought appellate review on whether the right to remain silent was invoked and whether it was scrupulously honored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prewaiver invocation by conduct suffices to invoke the right to remain silent | Commonwealth contends Thompkins required unambiguous spoken invocation | Defendant's headshake sufficed as invocation under Miranda | Invocation found; prewaiver conduct can invoke the right |
| Whether police scrupulously honored the invocation under Mosley | Commonwealth argues interrogation ceased after invocation | Interrogation continued with warnings and different topics | Not scrupulously honored; statements suppressed |
| Whether Article 12 offers greater protection than the Federal standard in prewaiver invocations | Art. 12 mirrors federal standard | Art. 12 provides broader protection than Fifth Amendment | Art. 12 provides greater protection; rule diverges from Thompkins; default Mosley standard applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established pretrial rights warnings and right to counsel)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (scrupulous protection of right to cut off questioning)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (requiring unambiguous invocation after a waiver in postwaiver context)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010) (necessity of unambiguous invocation under federal standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brant, 380 Mass. 876 (Mass. 1980) (illustrates non-scrupulous invocation context under Mosley)