State v. Nightingale, 2012 ME 132

Nightingale murdered Michael and Valerie Miller; he was among the last to be at the Millers’ home.
Police sought a polygraph; Nightingale self-commuted to the CID for testing on Dec. 11, 2009.
Polygraph conducted over ~9 hours in a small room; Nightingale received Miranda warnings and could leave at any time.
Post-test interrogation at Nightingale’s mother’s home; officers suggested false evidence and then conducted a second, custodial interview after Nightingale’s initial statements.
Nightingale confessed after the second interrogation; police obtained a third interview at a camp where Miller belongings were found.
Trial court denied suppression for most statements and physical evidence; post-warning statements and physical fruits were admitted at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the polygraph/interview at the CID was custody-based under Miranda.	Nightingale was in custody during the polygraph.	Nightingale was not in custody during the polygraph.	Not in custody during the first interrogation.
Whether Shatzer’s 14-day rule applies to re-interrogation after invocation of counsel.	Shatzer applies; waiting period violated.	Nightingale was not in custody, so Shatzer does not apply.	Shatzer does not apply because Nightingale was not in custody during the polygraph/interrogation.
Whether the in-home post-warning interrogation violated Seibert by a deliberate two-step process.	Police used midstream warnings to obtain confession.	Procedure not deliberate; no evasion of Miranda.	State bears burden to show lack of deliberate two-step; record supports no deliberate strategy.
Whether the post-warning confession was voluntary despite deception in the nine-hour interrogation.	Deception tainted voluntariness.	Totality of circumstances shows voluntariness.	Post-warning confession voluntary; suppression not warranted.

Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1985) (midstream unwarned statement followed by valid warned confession admissible if voluntary)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (Supreme Court 2004) (two-step interrogation analyzed for deliberate coercion; plurality approach with Kennedy concurrence influenced result)
Shatzer v. Maryland, 559 U.S. 98 (Supreme Court 2010) (14-day waiting period for reinterrogation after initial custody invoked counsel)
State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47, 17 A.3d 128 (Me. 2011) (articulates totality-of-circumstances approach to voluntariness and limits deceptive practices)
State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, 43 A.3d 952 (Me. 2012) (voluntariness despite leading statements; interview context is key)
State v. Lavoie, 2010 ME 76, 1 A.3d 408 (Me. 2010) (polygraph context; voluntariness under totality of circumstances)