Zedler, John Fredrick
PD-1219-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- John Frederick Zedler was indicted for the murder of his wife; a jury convicted him and sentenced him to 60 years' imprisonment.
- During an initial custodial interview on June 27, 2012, Zedler invoked his right to counsel (Miranda invocation).
- A few days later Zedler spoke with his son Brandon, who suggested asking Detective Angelo Floiran to explain the events to Zedler because Zedler claimed not to remember the night.
- Brandon contacted Detective Floiran; about two weeks after the first interview, Floiran retrieved Zedler from jail and conducted a second interview during which Zedler waived Miranda and made incriminating statements.
- Zedler moved to suppress the second interview arguing it violated Edwards v. Arizona because he had previously invoked counsel and had not reinitiated contact; the trial court denied suppression and the recording was admitted.
- On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding (1) that the record supported a finding that Zedler reinitiated contact through his son, and (2) that there was no proof any delay rendered the initiation stale; the appellate court modified a clerical error in the judgment regarding a deadly-weapon finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zedler) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second custodial interview violated Edwards v. Arizona after Zedler invoked counsel in the first interview | Zedler: He did not reinitiate contact; his son initiated contact and the police reinitiated interrogation in violation of Edwards | State: Zedler, through his son, reinitiated contact; thus Edwards did not bar the second interview | Held: Court of Appeals—Zedler reinitiated contact through his son; Edwards not violated |
| Whether any lapse of time between the son’s contact and the second interview rendered the initiation ineffective ("stale" initiation) | Zedler: Two-week delay shows he made no effort to reinitiate and mirrors Whaley where a multi-week gap defeated an initiation | State: No evidence showed the length of time or police delay; nothing shows police overreaching or that initiation had expired | Held: Court of Appeals—no proof the initiation had become stale; timing did not invalidate the initiation |
| Scope of whether a third party can effect an Edwards initiation | Zedler: Argued he could not have initiated through a third party | State: Courts allow initiation through third parties in some circumstances | Held: Court of Appeals—an accused can reinitiate through a third party; facts supported reinitiation here |
| Trial-judgment clerical error regarding deadly-weapon finding | Zedler: Judgment’s first page omitted the jury’s affirmative deadly-weapon finding | State: — | Held: Court of Appeals—modify judgment to reflect jury’s deadly-weapon finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (holding that after an accused invokes the right to counsel custodial interrogation must cease unless the accused initiates further communication)
- Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (reinforcing that police may not reinitiate interrogation after invocation of counsel unless counsel has been made available or the accused initiates)
- Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (holding police may not question a suspect in custodial interrogation after invocation of counsel even about unrelated offenses)
- United States v. Whaley, 13 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 1994) (court reversed where a three-week gap and lack of subsequent action showed no effective reinitiation by the defendant)
- Van Hook v. Anderson, 488 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2007) (recognizing a suspect may, in some circumstances, initiate discussion with police through a third party)
- Cross v. State, 144 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discussing Edwards and the critical inquiry whether the suspect reinitiated contact before further interrogation)