Elias Gaitan A/K/A Elias Gaitan Jr. v. State, 13-14-00661-CR

Appellant Elias Gaitan was indicted on four counts involving sexual offenses against his child and convicted by a jury; sentences included life without parole on Count I and concurrent lengthy terms on others.
Police interviewed Gaitan; three recorded interactions were at issue: (1) an initial police interview (suppressed), (2) a recorded conversation between Gaitan and his father in an interrogation room (admitted), and (3) remarks Gaitan made to Detective Lucio in an elevator while being returned to a cell (admitted).
At the first interview Gaitan requested a public defender; the trial court suppressed that recorded statement pretrial.
The State introduced the father-conversation and elevator statements at trial; trial counsel did not object when the suppressed first interview was later referenced by the State.
The State also presented other strong evidence (two letters from Gaitan to the victim requesting a recantation video, forensic interview/video of the victim, and medical testimony of hymenal trauma).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gaitan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of statements made to Gaitan's father	Statements should be suppressed because they followed a request for counsel and were effectively elicited on behalf of police	Father acted independently out of concern and was not a state agent; statements did not stem from custodial interrogation	Court admitted the statements (trial court denied suppression) because father was not a state agent and Art. 38.22 §5 applies
Admissibility of elevator statements to Detective Lucio after counsel request	Statements should be suppressed as product of continued interrogation after request for counsel	Gaitan initiated the communication and volunteered the statements; Lucio’s remarks were not interrogation under Innis	Court admitted the statements (trial court denied suppression) because Gaitan initiated the exchange and no interrogation occurred
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to testimony referencing suppressed first interview	Trial counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced outcome	Single failure does not establish deficient performance or prejudice given lack of admissions in suppressed interview and overwhelming other evidence	Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim (State urges denial); appellate posture would require Strickland showing which was not met

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (establishes that once a suspect requests counsel police must cease interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines "interrogation" to include words or actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Henson v. State, 794 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (non-law-enforcement visitor’s elicitation of confession not custodial interrogation where visitor acted independently)
Cates v. State, 776 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (analysis for when non-law-enforcement questioner functions as a state agent)
Chambliss v. State, 647 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (statements not stemming from custodial interrogation are admissible under Art. 38.22 §5)