State v. Garcia-Flores, 497 P.3d 847

Police executed a search warrant after a peer-to-peer upload of a video titled “Spermed Little Girls Mix” was traced to Garcia’s residence; a computer at the residence contained child pornography.
Garcia was charged with six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on five files (two videos, three photos) found on his computer.
During the search, officers Mirandized Garcia, who initially waived rights, then asked, “is it possible to have a lawyer,” but continued speaking and repeatedly affirmed he was willing to talk; he admitted ownership of the computer and that he had downloaded and viewed child pornography.
Defense moved to suppress statements made after the apparent invocation of counsel; the district court denied suppression, concluding any invocation was equivocal and Garcia subsequently waived by initiating further discussion.
Before trial the State agreed it would not show charged images beyond those forming the counts but sought to play a short excerpt of the investigative video (“Spermed Little Girls Mix”) that had triggered the investigation; defense counsel did not object to showing that excerpt (Exhibit 1).
Jury convicted Garcia on two counts (the two videos that forensic data showed were recently opened) and acquitted on four counts; Garcia appealed denial of suppression and raised ineffective assistance for failing to object to Exhibit 1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-invocation statements should be suppressed	Garcia: He invoked his right to counsel; continued statements were obtained in violation of Miranda	State: The request for counsel was ambiguous (not an unequivocal invocation); Garcia reinitiated and waived	Court: Request was ambiguous; even if invocation occurred, Garcia voluntarily reinitiated and waived; suppression denied
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Exhibit 1 (inflammatory uncharged video)	Garcia: Failure to object was deficient and prejudiced the defense because Exhibit 1 was highly prejudicial and unrelated to charged counts	State: Counsel’s failure was not prejudicial given strong evidence (forensic data and Garcia’s admissions)	Court: Failure to object was deficient performance, but Garcia failed to show prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim denied

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be unambiguous to stop questioning)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and the right to counsel)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (waiver may be inferred from a suspect’s course of conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (prejudice standard in ineffective-assistance context)
United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372 (child-pornography excerpts may be patently prejudicial)
United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (harmlessness and prejudice analysis where inflammatory material was admitted)