State v. Trochez-Jimenez
180 Wash. 2d 445
| Wash. | 2014Background
- Trochez-Jimenez was convicted of second-degree murder; he contends his custodial statements should be suppressed under Miranda and related Fifh Amendment authorities.
- The interrogation occurred outside the United States, conducted by Canadian and then King County detectives in Vancouver, British Columbia, with prior rights advisements under Canadian law.
- Trochez-Jimenez invoked a right to counsel with Canadian authorities, though it is unclear if he could consult a lawyer then.
- Detectives later questioned him using a Spanish-language waiver form and equated Canadian rights with Miranda rights before obtaining a statement.
- Trial court ruled Edwards-Roberson theory not triggered by foreign invocation; Court of Appeals affirmed that foreign-charter invocation does not compel Edwards protections for US authorities.
- State Supreme Court affirmed, holding Edwards does not apply to foreign investigations solely by foreign authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Edwards apply to foreign investigations? | Trochez-Jimenez | State | No Edwards protections extend to foreign investigations without US involvement |
| Does invoking a right to counsel under foreign law trigger Fifth Amendment invocation? | Trochez-Jimenez | State | Invocation under foreign law does not trigger Edwards protections |
| Does Fifth Amendment attach to foreign custodial interrogation? | Trochez-Jimenez | State | Fifth Amendment rights do not attach to foreign-only proceedings |
| Should Edwards be extended given foreign-law variability and policy concerns? | Trochez-Jimenez | State | Declined; Edwards not extended to foreign authorities |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requires warnings and cessation upon request for counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is invoked, interrogation must cease unless counsel is present)
- Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1988) (Edwards rule is not offense- or agency-specific)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (anticipatory invocation of counsel not permitted; waiver context matters)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (U.S. 2009) (cannot invoke Miranda rights anticipatorily outside custodial context)
- United States v. Covington, 783 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir. 1985) (Fifth Amendment protections extend to US agents; foreign interrogation not clearly included)
- Vidal, 23 M.J. 319 (C.M.A. 1987) (foreign-law counsel requests not imputed to American authorities)
- Hinojosa, 33 M.J. 353 (C.M.A. 1991) (foreign investigation may signal discomfort with foreign system, not necessarily invoke US rights)