State v. Michael A. Maltese (073584), 120 A.3d 197

Background

In October 2008 Michael Maltese was questioned about the disappearance of his parents after bank-card activity and bank surveillance tied purchases to him; shovels were found in his father’s car.
On Oct. 18 Maltese gave an initial taped statement, admitted using his mother’s card, was arrested and released; he returned on Oct. 24 for a polygraph and interview.
After the polygraph, Sgt. Vallas told Maltese he had “failed” and repeatedly pressed him for the location of the bodies; Maltese repeatedly asked to speak with his uncle before answering further.
Vallas agreed to let the uncle speak with Maltese but told the uncle (contrary to Maltese’s expectation) the camera would be turned off while simultaneously informing the uncle the polygraph failed; the uncle then spoke with Maltese and Maltese admitted to the uncle he knew where the bodies were.
Within minutes Maltese was re‑Mirandized and, in the same interview room and in front of officers involved in the investigation, he confessed to killing and burying his parents; police then located the bodies.
Trial court suppressed the recorded statement to the uncle (because of the misrepresentation about recording) but admitted the subsequent statement to police; Maltese was convicted of murder, manslaughter, and related offenses. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the murder and manslaughter convictions, affirmed other convictions, and remanded for an inevitable‑discovery hearing.

Issues

Issue	State (Plaintiff) Argument	Maltese (Defendant) Argument	Held
Did Maltese’s repeated request to speak with his uncle invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent?	Request did not clearly invoke silence; was a desire for advice, not an unequivocal assertion to stop questioning.	Repeated, explicit requests to talk to his uncle before answering showed an invocation of the right to remain silent.	Held: Yes. The repeated, specific requests to consult his uncle amounted to an invocation of the right to remain silent.
Was the statement Maltese made to his uncle admissible?	Recording/consent issues aside, the conversation was voluntary and not protected.	The statement was obtained after police continued interrogation despite Maltese’s invocation and after a misrepresentation that recording would be off; suppression required.	Held: Inadmissible. The statement to the uncle was the product of a failure to honor Maltese’s asserted right and was properly suppressed.
Was Maltese’s subsequent statement to police admissible or tainted as fruit of the earlier violation?	The right to silence was scrupulously honored: brief break, fresh Miranda warnings, different officers, and defendant willingly re‑initiated; any error was harmless given other evidence.	The second statement was given minutes later in the same room to officers known to be investigating, after officers indicated they already knew the confession; it was the fruit of the illegal first statement.	Held: Tainted and inadmissible. The second statement was the fruit of the unconstitutional statement to the uncle and must be suppressed.
Are the physical results (the bodies) admissible under the inevitable‑discovery doctrine?	Bodies would have inevitably been discovered (shallow grave; co‑defendant Taylor knew location).	Discovery resulted directly from the suppressed statements; State has not yet proven inevitable discovery.	Held: Undetermined on record. Remanded for a pretrial hearing; State must prove inevitable discovery by clear and convincing evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (controls factors for whether right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable‑discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
State v. Harvey, 121 N.J. 407 (request to speak to family member can invoke right to remain silent)
State v. Burris, 145 N.J. 509 (suppressed statements may be used to impeach defendant at retrial)
State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252 (second confession inadmissible where close in time/place and investigators were involved in both interviews)
State v. Johnson, 120 N.J. 263 (officers must scrupulously honor invocation; guidance on ambiguous invocations)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation factors for taint of prior illegality)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (factors relevant to whether a subsequent confession is voluntary and untainted)