Marko v. People, 2018 CO 97

Victim J.L., 19, was reported missing after online messages showed contact with user “Rex290,” identified as Robert Hull Marko, a Fort Carson soldier.
Military police (MPs) performed a welfare check at Marko’s barracks, later transported him in handcuffs to the provost marshal’s office (PMO) per base protocol; handcuffs removed before civilian police interview.
Civilian El Paso County Sheriff's (EPCS) officers interviewed Marko at the PMO; at the start they told him he was not under arrest and free to leave.
During a ~40-minute pre-Miranda interview Marko made incriminating statements; he was given Miranda warnings at 3:26 a.m. and later confessed on subsequent days.
At trial Marko pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI); jury rejected NGRI and convicted him of first-degree murder and sexual-assault counts.
On appeal Marko argued (1) the trial court erred by denying a for-cause challenge to Juror C due to views on the NGRI defense, and (2) his pre-advisement statements were obtained in custody in violation of Miranda.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Marko)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying challenge for cause to a juror skeptical of NGRI	Juror C's comments (requiring "overwhelming" proof) showed inability to apply law; must be excused for cause	Trial court rehabilitated Juror C by explaining legal standard; juror affirmed ability to follow law; demeanor supported impartiality	Denial not an abuse of discretion; juror was sufficiently rehabilitated and could follow instructions
Whether pre-Miranda statements should be suppressed because Marko was in custody	Military transport in handcuffs and chain-of-command pressure made him effectively not free to leave; statements therefore custodial	MPs handcuffs were standard protocol, removed before civilian interview; EPCS told Marko he was not under arrest and free to go; room unlocked and officers not coercive	Under totality of circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt deprived of freedom to degree of formal arrest; statements admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014) (juror error standard discussed in appellate context)
People v. Clemens, 401 P.3d 525 (Colo. 2017) (juror rehabilitation and deference to trial court demeanor findings)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995) (custody inquiry asks whether reasonable person would feel deprived of freedom comparable to formal arrest)
People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2002) (Miranda custody factors and totality-of-circumstances test)
People v. Elmarr, 181 P.3d 1157 (Colo. 2008) (significance of officer statements that suspect was not under arrest in custody analysis)