Mack v. State
296 Ga. 239
| Ga. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 1–2, 2012 Artenimus Mack was arrested for a Baldwin County murder and Mirandized; he signed waivers and was interviewed multiple times by Lt. Bobby Langford.
- During the Nov. 1 interview, after prolonged questioning and confrontation about inconsistencies, Mack said several times, “I’m done. I have no more to say,” an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent.
- Investigators continued questioning after that invocation; statements taken after the invocation on Nov. 1 were recorded on video.
- On the morning of Nov. 2, Langford re-initiated an interview ~17 hours after the Nov. 1 invocation, read Miranda again, and questioned Mack; those statements were recorded.
- Minutes after the first Nov. 2 interview ended, jail staff summoned Mack back to Langford; Mack then confessed in a subsequent, recorded Nov. 2 interview. Langford testified the jail requested Mack be brought because Mack wanted to speak.
- Trial court denied suppression, finding Mack had not unequivocally invoked silence and that Mack reinitiated contact; Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed videos and testimony de novo and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Mack’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mack unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent on Nov. 1 | Mack argues his statements (“I’m done. I have no more to say”) clearly invoked the right to cut off questioning | State argued his remarks were not an unambiguous invocation and interrogation could continue | Court: Mack’s words were an unequivocal invocation; statements after that point on Nov. 1 must be suppressed |
| Whether Nov. 2 morning interview (first session) was admissible after prior invocation | Mack: Police re-initiated too soon after the violated invocation; right not "scrupulously honored" | State: Re-Mirandized and questioning permissible; Mosley allows later police-initiated questioning if right was honored | Court: Police-initiated Nov. 2 morning interview was improper (resumption ~17 hours, prior violation, and no scrupulous honoring); statements inadmissible |
| Whether Mack’s final Nov. 2 confession was admissible because Mack initiated renewed contact | Mack: Even if he asked to speak, that request was product of prior coercive/badgering interrogation, not a voluntary initiation | State: Mack summoned Langford and thus initiated the contact, rendering later waiver and confession admissible | Court: Although Mack physically requested to speak, that request was the product of prior unlawful interrogation (short lapse, same officer, no break in custody); it did not constitute a legal “initiation” — confession suppressed |
| Standard for evaluating “initiation” after prior unlawful interrogation | Mack: Court should consider the entire sequence to determine if renewal was voluntary and not a product of police coercion | State: Emphasized who spoke first and that Mack signed Miranda waivers before subsequent statements | Court: Adopted rule that renewed contact is an "initiation" only if not the product of prior unlawful interrogation; review of factual findings is clearly erroneous standard but legal determination of initiation is de novo; State bears burden to prove initiation |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings and right to cut off questioning)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (police-initiated questioning after invocation permissible only if right to silence was "scrupulously honored")
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (prophylactic rule re: initiation after invocation of right to counsel; defendant must initiate further communication)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (discusses what constitutes an initiation; distinction between routine custodial requests and desire to discuss investigation)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (frames inquiry whether change of heart resulted from defendant’s own deliberation or police coercion)
- Mosley-related Georgia precedent: McDougal v. State, 277 Ga. 493 (standard of review and waiver/initiation principles)
- Rogers v. State, 290 Ga. 401 (right to remain silent must be unambiguous to require cessation)
- Wilson v. State, 275 Ga. 53 (17-hour lapse after prior violation was insufficient in that context)
- Griffin v. State, 280 Ga. 683 (scrupulous honoring factors; permissibility of later interrogation where rights respected)
- Fields v. State, 266 Ga. 241 (importance of immediately ceasing questioning upon invocation)
- Ashley v. State, 261 Ga. 488 (even if suspect speaks first, courts look to substance; speaking first alone may not be an effective initiation)
- Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411 (9th Cir.) (renewal must stem from unbadgered desire, not product of prior unlawful interrogation)