128 Conn. App. 836
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant McMillion assaulted Ivan Flores outside the Latino Club in Stamford with a baseball bat, causing severe head injuries.
- Flores required hospitalization with skull fractures and intracranial hematomas; physician testified substantial risk of death.
- McMillion fled to North Carolina and was extradited back to Connecticut in Oct 2007.
- During the return trip, McMillion made statements to officers Lupinacci and Mabey which were challenged as Miranda violations.
- A suppression motion was denied; trial proceeded to a jury finding McMillion guilty of assault in the first degree.
- On appeal, McMillion argues the Miranda warnings were inadequate because they did not explicitly convey the right to have an attorney present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings adequately conveyed the right to counsel during interrogation | McMillion contends warnings failed to express right to attorney present | State argues warnings sufficiently conveyed right to counsel | Yes; warnings reasonably conveyed right to have counsel present |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (established right to counsel during interrogation)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (adequacy of warnings evaluated commonsense, not formalism)
- Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) (warnings not a ritualistic recital; prophylactic safeguards)
- Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 1998) (Miranda warnings are prophylactic; focus on informed choice to waive or exercise rights)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (purpose of warnings to protect privilege against self-incrimination)
- Young v. Walls, 311 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2002) (warnings aim to protect suspect's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination)
- United States v. Frazier, 476 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (warnings convey information to suspect to exercise rights)