Wilkerson v. State
24 A.3d 703
Md.2011Background
- Wilkerson challenged the admissibility of pre- and post-Miranda statements following a 6 December 2007 interrogation.
- Interrogation occurred in Wilkerson's home after he was flex-cuffed, prior to any Miranda warning.
- A Miranda waiver was provided mid-interrogation; post-warning statements were introduced at trial.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions; Wilkerson sought certiorari to challenge Seibert-type issues.
- Maryland Court of Appeals granted limited remand to develop Seibert issues and to determine deliberateness of the interrogation.
- On remand, the Circuit Court will conduct supplemental proceedings to decide whether the delay and any two-step tactics were deliberate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of Seibert claim for review | Wilkerson preserved Seibert issue with taint argument. | State contends Seibert claim not properly preserved. | Limited remand; no merits decision on preservation at this time. |
| Applicability of Seibert framework to this case | Seibert should control analysis of post-warning statements. | Seibert not yet properly addressed; merits unresolved. | Remand to develop Seibert factual record. |
| Whether Seibert applies to inculpatory vs exculpatory statements | Post-warning statements related to prewarning admissions may be tainted. | Seibert's reach on exculpatory/culpatory variance unclear. | Remand for determinations on how Seibert applies to both types. |
| Deliberateness of the two-step/question-first tactic | Evidence suggests deliberate two-step interrogation. | Deliberateness not clearly shown in record. | Remand to determine whether delay was deliberate and whether two-step tactics were used. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two-step/question-first interrogation and warnings effectiveness)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (unwarned but voluntary statement does not forever taint post-warning statements)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (warnings after failed warnings can still inform a valid choice to continue)
- Cooper v. State, 163 Md.App. 70 (Md. App. 2005) (Maryland precedent on voluntariness and Seibert-related issues)
- Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68 (Md. 2008) (introductory nature of pre-warning questioning in some contexts)
- State v. Capers, 627 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2010) (Seibert deliberateness framework and burden considerations)