Frank M. Miller, Jr. v. Peter J. Fenton, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General, State of New Jersey

598 proving its not meet burden

simply did Meh exemption. See MILLER, Jr., to an Appellant, entitlement its Frank M. restaurant’s own ta, 706. The F.2d at v. had cook indicate that each figures FENTON, Superintendent, Rah Peter J. than per volume sales less work Prison, way State Irwin I. Kimmel Thus, employer year. previous General, man, Attorney New State of change evidence of insufficient presented Jersey, Appellees. it could not such that in circumstances No. 83-5530. ex cook with three inexperienced train an if we inter in 1983. Even perienced cooks Appeals, States Court of United questionable use of the Judge pret Sifton’s Third Circuit. arbitrary, we “appears” to mean “is” word Argued Jan. 1986. Secretary’s finding that the em think the its shown that business ployer has not Decided June 1986. inexperienced cook if an suffer would and not an was rational joined the staff Judge also Sifton

abuse of discretion. Secretary’s determination

found unnecessary to year’s experience was

one unconvincing.” Because “arbitrary and experi hired with no

all three aliens were employer failed to

ence and because inexperienced cooks could not be

show

trained, Secretary rationally acted experience was

concluding year’s one require minimum employer’s

not the actual impermissibly Judge in effect

ment. Sifton judgment for that of his

substituted

Secretary by making his own factual deter upon a reevaluation

minations based hand, Altimari, Judge on the other

record. determination, correctly upheld the ALJ’s the DOL lacks

Appellant’s contention that pursu

authority promulgate regulations 212(a)(14) wholly without to section

ant

merit- re-

Judgment in Docket No. 85-6312

versed; judgment in Docket No. 85-6348

affirmed. body lying

father found her mutilated face in a creek. down Jersey ar- the New State Police When scene, the victim’s brothers rived at the stranger description gave them up house had driven to the who driven, an old white car with the car he had dents in the side. trunk tied shut and two peti- the officers recalled that the One of tioner, Miller, nearby, drove a car who lived Defender, Rodriguez, Public Joseph H. description. Detective matched that that Wyk, (argued), Claudia Van Paul M. Klein Police confirmed the Boyce of the State Defenders, East Or- Deputy Public Asst. concluded description of the car and also N.J., appellant. for ange, stranger Mil- description of the fit that the Gen., Kimmelman, Atty. Anne C. I. Irwin ler, in 1969 of had been convicted who Gen., Div. (argued), Deputy Atty. Paskow and arrested in 1973 for statu- carnal abuse Section, Justice, Tren- Appellate of Crim. tory rape. N.J., ton, appellees. for day, p.m. At 10:50 that the state about place of em- police questioned Miller at his BECKER, SEITZ, GIBBONS Before Af- Plastics in Trenton. ployment, P.F.D. Judges. Circuit discussion, agreed to accom- brief he ter a police the barracks for pany the officers to THE COURT OF OPINION barracks, Mil- questioning. At the further BECKER, Judge. Circuit seventy-five minutes wait- spent ler Scott, during time requires ing Trooper which corpus appeal This state habeas questioned. He was then taken whether a confession was us to determine interrogation room Detective murder, petitioner to have into an alleged by the coercion, rights. Miller Boyce and read his Miranda by psychological been secured card, waiving his After thus signed admissible. a Miranda voluntаry and hence was rights,1 Boyce’s the confes Miranda reviewing the circumstances of interrogation, standard, into the v. One hour plenary see Miller ensued. sion under a — —, to the murder of Deborah 88 Miller confessed Fenton, 106 S.Ct. U.S. Fenton, passed (1985), Margolin, then out. rev’g Miller v. L.Ed.2d 405 Cir.1984), (3d find that we 741 F.2d 1456 there voluntary. We

the confession was II. HISTORY PROCEDURAL fore affirm. mur- first-degree Miller was indicted trial, suppress Before his he moved der. I. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND involuntary, but the state confession as the After a trial denied the motion. 13, 1973, seventeen-year-old trial court August On received as the confession was at which Margolin brutally murdered. Deborah evidence, appeal Miller was convicted. On brothers, sitting she was According to her conviction, panel the three-judge of the in rural East porch of her home on the Jersey Supe- Appellate Division of the New stranger ap- Township when a Amwell reversed, finding unanimously rior Court and informed proached in an automobile technique in elicit- Detective heifer was loose at the bottom her that a due had denied Miller ing confession2 driveway. Margolin drove alone Ms. Characterizing Boyce’s process of law. heifer. to retrieve the her brother’s car “psychological interrogation as method of day, her Later that never returned. She technique in detail warnings discuss this 2. We adequacy the Miranda 1. Neither infra. validity at issue. of the waiver is nor the

601 panel held that as a result of pressure,” Supreme The United States grant Court Miller’s confession had not pressure, ed certiorari and reversed. Miller v. Fen — decision, voluntary.3 In a 4-3 ton, —, been U.S. 106 S.Ct. Jersey Supreme reversed New Court (1985). L.Ed.2d 405 Stating that the issue and reinstated the con- Appellate Division legal, of voluntariness is a rather than a Miller, 76 N.J. viction. State v. factual, question, the Court held that (1978). Looking totality at the A.2d 218 challenged whether the confession was vol circumstances, held court untary independent is a matter for federal Boyce’s interrogation tactics had not over- appellate determination. It remanded the will, borne Miller’s and that the confession might case so that we conduct a fuller voluntary proper- had indeed been and thus analysis under the correct standard. We ly admissible into evidence. engage now inquiry such an and con (cid:127) clude that Miller’s confession was elicited petitioned Miller for a writ of habeas in compatible a manner require with the corpus in the District United States Court ments of the Jersey. Constitution. peti- for the District of New magistrate, tion was referred to a who recommended that the writ be denied. The III. THE INTERROGATION agreed, rejecting court Miller’s con- district At the outset of analysis, our it is essen- questioning tention that created tial that we review the salient features of psychological pressure that rendered the interrogation.5 Because po- the state involuntary. thereupon confession Miller taped lice interrogation, we have had appealed to this Court. opportunity actually to hear Detective Fenton, (3rd In Miller v. 741 F.2d 1456 Boyce’s questions and Miller’s responses. — Cir.1984), rev’d and remanded U.S. significant portion A of the questioning —, (1985), 106 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed.2d 405 typical police interrogation was 2254(d), we held that under 28 U.S.C. § mode, developing chronologically Miller’s finding federal review of the state court’s day question, whereabouts on the con- deferential, of voluntariness was limited to fronting him with the identification of his determining whether the state court had car, asking point-blank him whether he applied legal proper test and whether crime, committed the challenging his an- the conclusion reached the state court swers, attempting to discover the de- supported by the was record as a whole.4 tails of the crime. This element of the standard, Applying upheld we the de interrogátion unexceptionable and un- termination that Miller’s confession was challenged. pri- We shall therefore focus voluntary. Although passing we noted marily on the features of the if question that even our review on the of that are at issue. plenary, had

voluntariness been we would result, Boyce It is clear that have reached the same id. at 1467 n. made no threats engage any analy engaged physical we did not detailed arid in no coercion of question throughout sis of the Miller. To contrary, voluntariness under a interview, plenary standard. Detective assumed a quote unpublished opin- longer “legal" 3. The is taken from the mind should no a considered division, Miller, appellate ion of the State v. No. "hybird” question, question but rather a 27, 1975). (N.J.App.October A-1275-73 "ultimate fact.” Id. 2254(d) provides 4. Section that a state court reject 5. We the dissent’s contention we finding “presumption factual is entitled to a selectively picked and chosen from the tran- corpus proceed- correctness" in a federal habeas script attempting to demonstrate the volun- ing eight exceptions unless one of enumerated confession, tariness of and we welcome the applies. Conceding “concept that the of volun- transcript, decision dissent’s to attach the entire easy tariness is not one that lends itself to de- reading which will demonstrate that our scription," 741 F.2d at we concluded that fair. Supreme recent decisions of the Court indicated that the inference as to a defendant’s state of [Ljet’s incident, understanding spoke Boyce: forget [ljet’s manner and friendly, problem. what, repeаtedly your of voice. He talk about This is in a soft tone with, Frank, I’m sympathetic that he was this is what concerned assured Miller help your problem. him his him unburden and wanted pathy mind. As the strate, Boyce: Now listen to cause hurts # at the Detective’s statements times me more than it hurts I love $ following excerpts demon- people. approached $ # the maudlin: Frank. ^[*] $ sym- This be- Miller: Boyce: Miller: Boyce: problem, with about. my problem. Uh, Now, Right. If I would I had a huh. know what I’m want problem like talking your me Miller: Yeah. out, I’m Boyce: Let it come Frank.

here, Boyce: that, uh, I’m here now. I’m on And I and think side, side, people your your I’m on Frank. lot of other know. You know brother, you talking and I are what I’m about. broth- don’t think brothers, criminal, ers, you’re Frank. We are Frank. help my

want to brother. No, you’re trying Miller: but to make me Boyce: you, Frank? don’t we? Have $ We # have, ^[*] we have been sincere with $ relationship, # Jjt Boyce: No I’m one. this want thing worked out. talk not, to me so we can no I’m not, Boyce also gave Miller certain factual $ >jc ^[*] sfe $ ^[*] Boyce: you I want to talk to me. I want information, some of which was untrue. you you to tell me what think. I want beginning interrogation, At the of the for you you to tell me how think about example, Boyce informed Miller that this, what think about this. alive; still this was false. Dur- victim was interview, ing Boyce told Miller that Miller: What I think about it? died, Margolin just although Ms. had Boyce: Yeah. fact she had found dead several hours been really Miller: I think whoever did it earlier. help. needs Boyce’s major through- Detective theme Boyce: And that’s I think what and interrogation don’t, out the was that whoever had They I they that’s what know. a heinous crime had mental committed such punishment, right? don’t need Like problems desperately and of said, was need they help. need who should receive psychological needed understand that he believed that Miller had times that Miller ler that he understanding den himself. The Detective stated several should be interview, committed the crime and that Miller now a friend punished, Detective (Detective Boyce) treatment. From and that he wished to to whom could unbur- was help. but not a criminal a sick individual He assured Mil- led Miller to early sincerely who Miller: Boyce: Miller: That’s Boyce: They don’t need punishment Miller: for three and a half They solve ting ^[*] them in a Right. No, it, [T]o need ^[*] is it? sir. in, rectify help, good right. ^[*] I know, their prison years. ^[*] problem. I medical isn’t was # going there ^[*] help. Put- to Frank, problem. following Boyce: him can can with his ex- You see it, you you are not cerpts transcript interroga- from the of the feel can feel it but responsible. trying I’m to provide examples tion This is what statements having psychological prob- you; you’ve got to come for- about Miller’s tell Don't, don’t, lems, don’t help: as as of the assurances of ward and tell me. well don’t, fight you. got it. You’ve up, don’t be truthful with eat let it yourself. it, rectify Frank. We’ve gоt to You’ve I, thing, or get together on got to help, you need really, you need I mean Boyce: important thing, That’s the most it, God, my help, you know

proper not, happened, what has Frank. know, name, you, you, in God’s truthful, The fact that were criminal, not a know it. You are said, forward and I came look have not a criminal. you are problem. I didn’t mean to do what I problem, did. I have a this is what’s Miller’s con- appealed to Boyce also important, very impor- Frank. This is importance science and described tant, got, got you, I closer to I, of the memories purging himself Miller’s Frank, got to make believe this haunting aspect him. This must I’m, sincere I’m when tell pre- exemplified got exactly this. You to tell me don’t, don’t let it ceding passage “Don’t, — happened, very Frank. That’s don’t, fight it. You’ve you up, don’t eat important. know how feel in- it, following Frank.” The got rectify side, Frank, eating you up, it’s am I Boyce’s ar- excerpts representative are right? eating you up, It’s Frank. along line: guments got You’ve to come forward. You’ve Frank, me, honest to listen to Boyce: got yourself, your to do it for for fami- Frank, (inau- God, I'm, telling you, father, ly, this is what’s im- dible). going it’s to bother truth, portant, the Frank. going you. you, it’s to bother confessed, When Miller at last he col- there, go away, going It’s it’s not lapsed in He a state shock. slid off his right It’s in front of it’s there. chair and onto the floor with a blank stare right wrong? Am I Frank. police on his face. The officers sent for a Miller: Yeah. squad hospi- first aid that took him to the ^[******] tal.

Boyce: you’ve body how difficult it out. You can’t leave it in. ^[******] else can Honest, got realize help yourself Frank. help you. is, that, I realize It’s how got before hard it It’s hard to come any- but is, logical manipulation method of whether Miller The sole IV. THE contends. that Miller’s confession was interrogation THE CONFESSION question VOLUNTARINESS before this Court is of such constituted Detective magnitude voluntary. psycho- OF involuntary. that it rendered his confession thing is let it Boyce: First we have to do government counters that Miller’s con- fight all come out. Don’t it because voluntary properly fession was and hence worse, Frank, It’s hurt- it’s it’s worse. admissible. ing me I feel it. I feel it because out, wanting hurting it’s to come Legal A. The Test Voluntariness of me, Frank.

[******] untary It confession is well established that may result from an invol psycho See, No, please logical, physical, as well as coercion. listen to Boyce: Alabama, 199, e.g., v. 361 U.S. listen to me: The issue now is what Blackburn 274, 279, (1960) 206, 4 242 truth. 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d happened. The issue now is demonstrated, (“A if got to number of cases Truth is the issue now. You’ve needed, effi this, were that the prevails in demonstration believe and the truth can end, ciency of the rack and the thumbscrew Frank. You have to believe the matched, given proper subject, by saying the that аnd I’m sincere when 604 225-26, 2046-47; ‘persua- Procu- modes of U.S. at 93 S.Ct. at sophisticated

more York, 315, New 453, Spano Atchley, supra, v. nier v. sion’.”); 360 U.S. 400 U.S. at 91 1202, (1959); Fikes 489; 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 Haynes Washington, v. su- 79 S.Ct. S.Ct. at 281, Alabama, 191, 77 1 v. 352 U.S. S.Ct. pra, 373 513, at 83 1342 U.S. S.Ct. at Denno, 347 (1957); Leyra v. 246 Illinois, L.Ed.2d Lynumn v. (1963); 528, 372 U.S. 716, (1954); 556, 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. 948 U.S. (1963); 920, 917, 922 9 L.Ed.2d 534, 83 S.Ct. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, v. 69 S.Ct. Watts Connecticut, v. 568, Culombe 367 U.S. Turner v. 1347, (1949); L.Ed. 1801 93 602, 1860, 1879, 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 1352, 62, 69 S.Ct. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. Denno, Leyra supra, 347 (1961); v. at U.S. (1949); Harris v. South Car- 93 L.Ed. 1810 558, (1954); Watts v. 74 at 717 S.Ct. olina, 68, 1354, 69 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 338 U.S. Indiana, supra, 338 U.S. at 53, 69 S.Ct. at Tennessee, v. (1949); 322 1815 Ashcraft 1349. Factors to be considered include: 921, (1944); 143, 88 L.Ed. 64 S.Ct. 1192 U.S. accused; youth his the lack of Florida, 227, 60 v. Chambers 309 U.S. intelligence; education or his low the However, 472, (1940). S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. 716 any lack of advice to the accused of his per se involuntariness applies rule while a rights; length constitutional of de- accompanied by- when an tention; repeated prolonged na- York, violence, see v. New Stein physical questioning; phys- ture of and the use of 1077, 1091, 156, 182, 73 97 346 U.S. S.Ct. punishment deprivation ical such as the (1953), applies no such rule L.Ed. 1.522 sleep. of food or alleged psychological. coercion is when the Bustamonte, supra, v. Schneckloth 412 184, Id. at at 1092. As the Su- 73 S.Ct. 226, (1973) (cita U.S. at 93 S.Ct. at 2047 noted, preme has line between Court “[t]he omitted). Eighth tions As the Circuit has proper permissible police conduct and explained, “[u]sing totality the flexible due techniques and methods offensive to approach requires the circumstances is, best, draw, process one to at a difficult reviewing specific court to consider the tac as this it is particularly cases such where by police eliciting utilized tics necessary judgments to make fine as to the admissions, interrogation, the details psychologically pressures coercive effect accused____” the characteristics of the on the mind and will of an and inducements States, 1373, Rachlin v. United 723 F.2d Haynes Washington, v. accused.” 373 (8th (citations omitted). Cir.1983) 1377 Al 503, 515, S.Ct. U.S. though at the trial level the burden is on (1963). L.Ed.2d 513 establish, government prepon To determine voluntariness evidence, challenged derance of the confession, the court must consider the Lego see v. voluntary, confession was totality effect that the of the circumstances 477, 489, Twomey, 404 U.S. 92 S.Ct. See, upon had the will of the defendant. (1972), 626, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 on collateral Bustamonte, 412 e.g., Schneckloth v. U.S. review, corpus petitioner the habeas must 2041, 2047-48, 218, 226-27, 93 S.Ct. 36 prove preponderance involuntariness a Atchley, Procunier v. (1973); L.Ed.2d 854 Martin v. Wain See of the evidence. 489, 446, 453, 485, 91 S.Ct. 27 400 U.S. 918, (11th Cir.1985); wright, 770 F.2d 925 Cupp, 394 (1971); Frazier v. L.Ed.2d 524 Estelle, 623 F.2d 929, (5th v. 937 Jurek 731, 739, 1420, 1424, 22 U.S. 89 S.Ct. Estelle, 1051, Bruce v. Cir.1980); 536 F.2d Holman, Boulden v. (1969); L.Ed.2d 684 (5th Cir.1976). 1059 478, 1138, 1139, 480, 22 394 89 S.Ct. U.S. emphasize the test for vol We Blackburn v. (1969); Ala 433 L.Ed.2d do not is not a test: we bama, supra, 206, untariness but-for at 80 S.Ct. at 361 U.S. would have Alabama, whether the confession supra, 352 U.S. at ask Fikes ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍v. 279; interroga the made in the absence of 197, been question The in each 77 S.Ct. at 284. impelled to con feel tion. Few criminals will was case is whether the defendant’s See, their own ac e.g., police purely to the fess overborne when he confessed. Bustamonte, any questioning at all. See cord, supra, 412 v. without Schneckloth York, supra, Stein v. New suspect’s 346 U.S. at balancing own of competing con- (“Of course, these siderations, 73 S.Ct. at 1093 confes the confession is voluntary. voluntary in the sense that sions were question answer, then, we must is not petitioners wanted to make them or that whether Detective statements spontaneous, they completely were like a were the cause of Miller’s confession—in- priest, lawyer, psy a or confession a deed, we assume that to be the case—but chiatrist. But this sense no criminal whether those manipu- statements were so United States voluntary.”); is confession lative they deprived or coercive that Miller Wertz, (4th v. 625 F.2d Cir. ability of his unconstrained, to make an 1980). Thus, always it can almost be said autonomous decision to confess. To that interrogation the caused the confes inquiry we now turn. sion. Moreover, generally recognized it is B. The Circumstances the Miller In- police may psychological that the use some terrogation susp eliciting tactics in a statement from a “totality A of the circumstances” Haynes Washington, supra, v. See ect.6 inquiry strictly defies analytic treatment. 514-15, 373 U.S. at 83 S.Ct. at 1343-44. We cannot reach simply by a conclusion example, interrogator may play For on scrutinizing each circumstance separately, suspect’s sympathies explain concept underlying for the phrase “to honesty might policy be the best for a tality of the circumstances” is that hopes leniency criminal who from the is whole somehow distinct from the sum of States, supra, state, see Rachlin v. United Wertz, See United States v. parts. (agents may 723 F.2d at 1378 have told supra, Nevertheless, 625 F.2d at 1134. we suspect that it was in his best interest to can totality only understand the after re cooperate, resulting but confession was vol viewing the constituent elements of the Vera, untary); United States v. 701 F.2d situation. We (11th shall therefore discuss Cir.1983) each (agent 1363-64 told interrogation relevant circumstance of the suspect by coop that he could himself addressing question before erating, resulting whether all confession was vol circumstances, untary). ploys of the may play part together, These taken indi confess, suspect’s decision to but so cate that Miller’s confession was volunt long product as that is ary.7 decision simply way saying just 6. This is person another what we automobile like Miller’s and of a per stated earlier —that there no se rule generally fitting Miller’s characteristics whom against psychological the use of tactics in inter- shortly one of the brothers had seen before the rogations. enough homicide —was not to solve the crime. Indeed, Judge Gibbons himself stresses the in- Judge argues

7. Gibbons in dissent that "the in- point conclusiveness of this evidence at a later terrogation ' purpose of Miller has no other than opinion. dissenting opinion, See at 617. obtaining admissions that could be used to lineup development Neither a nor the of evi- murder," charge felony Miller with undermining dence Miller’s alibi would neces- law, apparently as a matter of "such an interro- sarily gap. have filled the gation requires scrutiny." Dissenting the closest Second, implies interroga- the dissent that the opinion, premise at 615. The factual of this ar- inappropriate tion would have been aas matter gument page is stated at 615: according of law even if it had been conducted police Thus the did not need to conduct an Hoyle. disagree. We It is well settled that interrogation investigating- directed at legitimate police investigative is a already they murder —it was solved so far as police right pursue tool which the have a to no were concerned. strong matter how the other evidence of a sus- Hence, concludes, the dissent there was a "com- pect’s guilt may obviously be. It is desirable for plete any legitimate investigative absence of police to as much exact information as purpose interrogation," Dissenting opin- for the case, they in-any especially can criminal and ion, at 615. case, first-degree murder so as to reduce to an argument, line This of never Mil- advanced counsel, First, possibility absolute minimum the that an inno- ler’s able is flawed. the evidence already person police principally cent that the the de- will be convicted. Indeed we have had — scription given by Margolin’s support sugges- Ms. brothers of an found no for the dissent’s novel 606 Background

1. Miller’s ant disadvantaged was not by youthful ig- norance or the naivete inexperi- born of adult, thirty-two years is a Miller mature ence” and concluded that he “was able to age. intelligence of He is of normal and pressure resist whatever brought was to high some school education. has Such a him by agent’s bear on the FBI promise to person interrogation is more resistant to cooperation make his known to the United person very young, than a who is unedu- Attorney____”8 States cated or weak-minded. Davis v. North Cf. 737, Carolina, 1761, 384 86 U.S. S.Ct. 16 (1966) (detainee L.Ed.2d 895 had third- or (cid:127) Length 2. the Interrogation fourth-grade very IQ); education and low Boyce’s interrogation Detective of Miller Alabama, (detainee supra Fikes v. was lasted less than an hour. It was not “a person uneducated intelligence, pos- of low process interrogation prolonged so illness); sibly Pate, with mental Reck v. unremitting, especially acсompa when 433, 1541, 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d 948 by deprivation refreshment, nied rest or (1961) (detainee retarded). mentally was relief, accomplish as to extortion of an in suffering Miller was painful physi- from no voluntary York, confession.” v. Stein New impelled cal ailment that would him to 184, supra, 346 U.S. at 73 S.Ct. at 1092. It simply put confess to an end to the deten- distinguishable is thus from lengthy Pate, (detainee supra tion. Reck v. Cf. interrogations during incommunicado de ill, physically point one vomiting at blood tention that have been held to result room); interrogation on the floor of the See, involuntary confessions. e.g., Davis v. Denno, (detainee Leyra supra suffering v. Carolina, (sixteen supra days); North acutely painful condition); from sinus Pate, (four supra Reck v. States, days); Payne Ziang v. Sun Wan v. United 266 U.S. Arkansas, 560, 1, 1, (1924) (detainee 844, 356 45 S.Ct. 69 U.S. 78 2 L.Ed. 131 S.Ct. (1958) suffering spastic colitis). hours); L.Ed.2d 975 (forty-nine from Alabama, (two weeks); Fikes v. supra Moreover, Miller previous expe- had had Tennessee, supra (thirty v. six Ashcraft system; indeed, rience with the criminal hours); States, Ziang Sung v.Wan United jail Thus, had served a sentence. he was (seven supra days). significant It is consequences aware of the confessing. psychological cases which coercion has In experience, addition to this he received typically longer been found peri involved warnings. Miranda The Seventh Circuit ods of than which recently has importance stressed the of a See, Miller was e.g., submitted. Blackb prior experience, detainee’s age as well as Alabama, supra (eight urn v. to nine education, in determining whether a hours); York, Spano (two supra v. New confession was voluntary. In United Denno, (four weeks); Leyra supra v. Oglesby, (7th States v. 764 F.2d 1278 days); Indiana, (five supra v. Cir.1985), days). Watts the court noted that the accused Moreover, request Miller prior pres did not felony convictions, had three had lawyer ence of any person earned a either a or other college substantial number of provide fifty-four sup credit hours and him with advice years old at or moral the time port. of his Haynes Washington, supra confession. The court stat- v. Cf. ed that (detainee “the record reveals that the defend- not allowed to call his wife until police Cir.1985) (in holding tion that even if voluntary have conclusive evi- confession court offender, identity dence of the proper of an previously it is im- pled guilty noted that detainee had interrogate him. second-degree three counts of murder and one arson, count of for which he had been sen- York, 8. supra, See also Stein v. New 346 U.S. at years prison, tenced to 18 to 30 and was on 185-86, (holding 73 S.Ct. at 1093-94 confessions parole at the time of the events relevant to the voluntary noting men were not "[t]hese Pate, interrogation). supra, Reck v. 367 U.S. soft, young, ignorant They or timid. were not Cf. (detainee prior at 81 S.Ct. at had no inexperienced ways of crime its detec tion, experience police). criminal record or with the they rights.”); nor were dumb as their (11th Wainwright, Martin v. 770 F.2d

607 confession); Ziang Nevertheless, Sun gave “good a written guy” approach States, supra (detainee v. United recognized permissible is as Wan tactic. See brother). Schutt, supra, Royal & asked in vain to see his at 61- Moreover, Supreme

62. Court has indi- cated sympathetic that a attitude on the Friendly Approach 3. Boyce’s part interrogator of the is not in itself Boyce’s supportive, encouraging manner enough to render a confession involuntary. interrogation tactic aimed was an at win See, e.g., States, Beckwith v. United 425 ning making Miller’s trust and him feel 341, 343, 348, 1612, U.S. 1614, 96 S.Ct. confessing. comfortable about Excessive 1617, (1976) 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (interrogator part interrogator friendliness on the of an adopted sympathetic attitude, resulting instances, deceptive. In can be some in confession Frazier v. voluntary); was tactics, might combination with other cre Cupp, supra, 737-39, 394 U.S. at 89 S.Ct. atmosphere in suspect ate an which a for (same). at Only 1423-25 if aspects other gets questioner that his is in an adversarial interrogation strengthened the illusion role, thereby prompt admissions that that it was non-adversárial in character suspect ordinarily only would make to a could Miller’s confession have been involun- friend, Spano See v. police. not to the tary because of psychological coercion. York, supra, 323, New U.S. at 79 S.Ct. officer, (police at 1207 suspect’s who was Boyce’s Lie 4. friend, suspect job childhood told that his While a lie told to the detainee jeopardy suspect in if would be did not important aspect of the may case job confess and that the loss of his would affect the confession, voluntariness of the children, be disastrous for his three his the effect of the lie must analyzed child); Leyra v. Den wife and his unborn context of all the circumstances of the in no, supra, 347 U.S. at at S.Ct. 718 terrogation. e.g., See Frazier Cupp, v. (police psychiatrist, telling suspect after supra, 737, 739, 394 U.S. at 89 S.Ct. at give that he was a doctor him who would 1423, 1424, (false by police statement offi headache, help suspect with his sinus told confessed, cer that detainee’s cousin had how much he wanted to him with his voluntariness, while relevant to issue of legal predicament good and described how was insufficient to make otherwise volun suspect would feel if he unburdened his inadmissible). tary confession We do not conscience).9 White, See also Police Trick believe the lie about the time of Ms. ery Inducing Confessions, in 127 U.Pa.L. death, Margolin’s itself, by constituted suf (1979) (advocating per 614-17 se Rev. trickery ficient to overcome Miller’s will. agаinst seeking rule device of to elicit in suggested Because never that the criminating through assump information Margolin’s time of might Ms. death be rele role); Royal tion a non-adversarial F. & crime, linking vant Miller to the the only Schutt, Interviewing The Gentle Art of S. possible effect of initial statement Interrogation, quoted (1976), 61-61 alive, by she report followed his supra White, (“Resistance to the disclosure died, just that she had would be an emo [incriminating] information considera response tional in Miller. The drama of the bly if increased ... is not done might announcement of the victim’s death friendly trusting to establish a attitude prompted particularly feelings acute part subject.”). Gay on the As John Miller, helped which could have to induce has written: However, sug his the record confession.. curse, open may prove An foe But a gests that this emotional reaction did not pretended friend is worse ... occur, appears for it Miller was not York, Spano supra, v. New Quoted 360 affected all death. at the news Indeed, quite impassive. U.S. at 79 S.Ct. at 1207. he remained We Distinguishing Leyra 9. factors in are described 612. at infra

608 Rather, any pathos therefore or re- conclude that Court had indicated that it does might particu- not matter morse he have felt was that the accused confessed be- larly strong. promise, cause of the long prom- so as the

ise did not overbear his will. See Hutto v. Ross, supra, 30, Boyce's Promises 5. 429 U.S. at 97 at S.Ct. 203. Apparently, the words “obtained by ... that Miller Detective statements promises” in the Bram test have been read criminal, mentally ill was not a but rather to mean “obtained suspect’s because the actions, responsible for individual not his will was promises.” overborne In Boyce’s promises and Miller raise a words, promises other trigger do not an question more serious about the voluntari- analysis totality different from the By telling ness Miller’s confession. Mil- supra See circumstances test. at 603-605. responsible any- ler that he was not done, thing might Boyce may have have Thus, promises courts have treated as making implied been understood to be an part of the totality of the circumstances in promise Miller that Miller would not be assessing the voluntariness of confessions. prosecuted, prosecuted or that if he were See, e.g., Denno, Leyra v. supra, 347 U.S. presenting him in would aid the in- 559, (1954); at 74 S.Ct. at 718 United sanity Similarly, promises defense. Ferrara, States v. (2d Cir.), 377 F.2d 16 psychiatric help might suggested have denied, cert. 908, 225, 389 U.S. 88 S.Ct. 19 treated, Miller that he would be rather than (1967); Rachlin v. United L.Ed.2d 225 prosecuted. promises, implicit If these States, supra, 723 F.2d at 1377 (quoting explicit, confessing, tricked Miller into his Bram in a discussion of the totality of the may involuntary. confession have been To test). circumstances As the Second Circuit Boyce’s promises determine whether af- Ferrara, stated in the Bram rule has nev fected the voluntariness Miller’s confes- applied er been with “wooden literalness.” sion, manipulative we must consider how 377 F.2d at 17. The Fourth Circuit has these tactics in fact were. proper described the analysis promises thus: Respecting The Rule Promises Made a.

During Interrogation Despite Bram language ], this broad [in government the cases indicate that States, 532, In Bram v. United 168 U.S. agents may validly represen- make some (1897), 18 S.Ct. 42 L.Ed. 568 the Su- may tation to a defendant or discuss preme Court endorsed the view that to be cooperation rendering without the result- voluntary, a confession must not have been “ ing involuntary. confession Government by any ‘extracted sort of threats or vio- agents may initiate conversations on co- lence, by any nor obtained direct or im- ” operation, they may promise to make a plied promises, slight.’ however Id. at cooperation defendant’s known to the 542-43, 187, quoting 18 S.Ct. at 3 Russell prosecutor, they may even be able (6th ed.) (emphasis added). on Crimes 478 promises make and breach certain with- Bram Although the test has been re- rendering resulting out in- confession Ross, affirmed Hutto v. 28, 30, 429 U.S. Nevertheless, voluntary. there are cer- 202, 203, (1976)(per 97 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 50 194 promises tain whose attraction renders a curiam), in Brady v. United dictum resulting involuntary confession if the States, 742, 753-54, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. promises kept, are not and the defend- 1471-72, (1970), 25 L.Ed.2d 747 it has not perception government ant’s of what per se interpreted proscription been as a agents promised important is an against promises during interroga- made determining factor in voluntariness. Supreme tion. Nor does the Court even Shears, have been United States v. promises use a but-for when F.2d test omitted). (4th Cir.1985) (footnotes during interrogation, despite made 401-02 short, of the Bram rule. seemingly plain meaning support In there is no in the case law for the dissent’s statement that “when and to jail sentence him to if convicted in promises, slight, however are made in the order to render Miller’s confession involun- interrogation pres- room rather than in the tary. counsel, promises those ence of render the At no time did Detective Boyce state that

resulting confession inadmissible.” Dis- Miller not prosecuted would or that he at 627.10 senting opinion, successfully could avail himself of the in b. The Promises Made to Miller sanity defense. Powe, United States v. Cf. 833, 591 F.2d (D.C.Cir.1978)(de 845 n. 36 Boyce’s Detective tone of voice and fendant testified that the detective who frequent repetition his of may assurances interrogated him propositions “made to me credibility have lent implied promise to his turning as far as drug over up dealers prosecuted. that Miller would not bе How him, that area over to drop my case and ever, given Miller had been Miranda warn case”). Mr. Harris’ While might innuendo ings, which included the admonition that rise to the level of trickery, it is not so anything that Miller said could be used likely to break down resistance as is a Thus, against him. when the promise spelled that Indeed, is out. Detec began, Miller knew that if he confessed to Boyce’s tive statements that Miller was Margolin the prose murder he could be “not a criminal” need not be understood as cuted. Cupp, supra, See Frazier v. 394 assurances leniency of at all. Since 739, the (“Before U.S. at 89 S.Ct. at 1425 peti Detective’s interrogation strategy was to any statements, tioner made incriminating present himself as a friend to whom Miller partial warnings he received of his consti himself, could unburden he of is, course, course rights; tutional at of a circum voluntariness.”). tempted throughout the quite per interview to finding stance relevant to a of suade Miller to trust him Smith, and confide in Robinson v. 451 Cf F.Supp. . him. 1278, (W.D.N.Y.1978) statements at issue (ac 1282 can be viewed as a means promised convincing cused who was of “the benefits of Miller Boyce that any sympathetic, leniency may that come him in no the matter courts” did not what the state’s reaction warnings might receive Miranda be. “You are responsible” and was not otherwise not advised that he and “You are not a might involve charge himself in a murder criminal” thus would mean my eyes, “In by making a police). responsible statement to the are not De or a criminal and tective words of comfort therefore you would should relieve con have had to overcome Miller’s by talking initial belief science who understands that the prosecute state intended to you.” him true, out, points

10. While it is as the dissent The court noted that the detainee had initiated subjects other test, psychiatric help police federal circuit courts have pro- cited the Bram of against vengeance tection applied per these courts have not it as a se of the victim’s proscription promises pointed husband. Id. at 1251. It interroga also out of made in the Rather, that the detainee was above, in control of his faculties explained tion room. as we confessing. while Id. at 1250. The con- court inquired these courts have into whether alleged promise police protec- cluded that the of promise by overbearing induced the confession tion did not render the confession inadmissible the will of the accused. The discussion of police because "the officer’s statement [about Balkcom, promises in Jarrell v. 735 F.2d 124 protection] likely 2 was neither to nor intended to (11th Cir.1984), exemplifies approach, аl induce confession." Id. at 1251. As for the though prove the dissent cites it to that Bram psychiatric help, statements about it found "no interpreted rendering promises has been as all promised benefit inferrable" therefrom. during interrogations invalid. reading While the court conforms to a strict Jarrell, In 735 F.2d at the Eleventh Circuit by finding promises, Bram that there were no support proposition cited Bram to that "con- test, analysis per it uses is not a se but an by promised fessions induced benefits are inad- inquiry challenged into whether the statement Although missible.” this statement seems to be inquiiy overbore the will of the detainee. The prohibition against making, prom- a flat whether, really totality under the the cir- during interrogation, analysis ises the court’s cumstances, the statement induced confes- totality follows a of the circumstances test. sion, was, face, promise. whether on its confession____” might have made While such a statement bar the 397 U.S. at speak added). Miller feel more comfortable about (emphasis S.Ct. at 1472 ing Boyce, it not render his con would promises prob- While with collateral of a product fession the mistaken belief found, lems have been in combination with grant leniency. him the state would factors, other coercive to render confes- anyone Detective never stated that involuntary, see, e.g., supra, sions Leyra, thought that Miller was “not a general, promises such are less coercive criminal,” any nor did he state he had promises to the accused than directly relat- authority charges brought to affect proceedings ed to the criminal at hand.12 against Miller. See United v. States Sebe (3d Cir.1985) tich, 412, (police promises 776 F.2d 422 help of to Miller fall bargain); authority plea chief lacked to promises relating somewhere between to States, supra, v. 723 F.2d purely Rachlin United promises collateral issues and of (8th Cir.1983) (Secret at 1376-77 Service leniency in the proceed immediate criminal Agents authority plea bargain). lacked to Miller, ings against help “prob for with the may Miller’s confession been made in might interpreted lem” be to mean commit hope leniency, the of but that does not psychiatric hospital ment to a in lieu of in response mean that it was made to a Indeed, imprisonment. in combination with promise leniency. of See Rachlin v. Unit respon the statements that Miller was “not States, supra, 723 ed F.2d at 1378. sible,” interpreted it could be to mean that prosecution there would be no of Miller. regard psychiatric help, With to the on However, taking all these statements to hand, Boyce the other did make some out- gether, implication there is at most an said, right promises. example, For he leniently Miller will be treated in the im going you get to see to that the “[W]e’re pending proceedings. Boyce criminal made proper help. This job, is our Frank.” Such promise no direct leniency; of such the promise quite ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍compelling in could be it- only outright promise he made was to strengthen implica- self and could also the help psychological problem. Miller with his might prosecuted tions that Miller not be at above, promises As we have stated indirect all. do potency promises. not have the of direct drawn, A distinction can be how one, quite In a case similar to this the ever, promises leniency between of recently First Circuit found a confession to proceedings against imminent criminal the voluntary. Vose, Bryant be v. 785 F.2d promises help defendant and of some with (1st Cir.1986). During interrogation 364 Bram, problem. supra, collateral In there suspect, police of a murder the chief told implied promise was an that the defendant the detainee of his prosecuted would not if he the best knowl- be confessed.11 edge, general practice persons distinguishing In the for who Bram the Court Bra “crazy” are and commit crimes is dy, supra, noted that under the circum serious stances of the Bram case “even a mild for them “to be sent for observation to promise observation, leniency Bridgewater [Hospital] of was deemed sufficient ... for per According proscribed 11. The informed the detective accused that an- under a se rule. murder, person White, difficulty assessing other had seen him commit the Professor "the of 562, 194, 168 U.S. at 18 S.Ct. at and that he suspect subjected interroga- effect on the to the accomplice should tell the if he had an detective suggests respect to issue the tion that with having in order to avoid "the blame of this totality pro- not of the circumstances test does horrible crime on 564, own shoulders.” Id. at protection suspect’s consti- vide effective interpreted 18 S.Ct. at The Court 195. rights.” tutional Id. second statement as an offer of a benefit. convinced, however, appli- We are not that the totality White, cation of the of the circumstances test Trickery Inducing 12. But see Police its than more difficult (1979), significantly Confessions, is issue 127 U.Pa.L.Rev. 623 affecting argues promises application which the tangible all to other factors voluntari- author of by police during benefits made interro- ness. gation in order to elicit a confession should be

611 Boyce, or not the obvious differences whether between the they’re determined then Id., standing trial.” at of two situations render the they’re capable of argument that Leyra much less rejected Miller coercive. was ex- The court 367. promise рlicitly of product easily. told he would be let off was confession court, “The Moreover, According to was interviewed for several leniency. directly days suffering painful did Bridgewater was from a reference Any it. promise condition, let alone as well leniency, sinus as from extreme suggest contrast, fatigue. questioned be In Miller promise indirect from inferred as to slight suffering is so less than an hour and was not remark Bridgewater ” Id., sleep any physical these circumstances. from lack of other insignificant added). promise help sup- ailment. The with his (emphasis at problem posed mental thus did not have the Denno, Leyra v. 347 U.S. S.Ct. urgent appeal promise that a (1954),in confes- 98 L.Ed. 948 which a physical pain Any acute would have. involuntary, noteworthy sion was held leniency promise prosecutorial was made psycho- the kinds of illustrates because it implication. only by pressures a de- logical that can overbear Although the in tainee’s will. detainee Totality 6. the Circum- Effect of stances of help Leyra promised was with a collateral problem medical and was assured that “he determining In whether the cir wrong had no moral and would be let done indicate that cumstances described above 560, 718, easily,” 74 at off id. at S.Ct. involuntary, Miller’s confession was we Leyra quite situation in is different from must whether tactics were consider of Miller’s confession. the circumstances sufficiently manipulative to overbear the questioned continually Leyra was almost person of a with Miller’s characteris will days. four He over the course of had had recognize tics. We thus that limits very sleep frequently “[t]he “com- little permissible questioning any plained sleepy how tired and how he [of tactics] depend upon weighing a of the circum think;” case and how he could not was pressure against power stance of of questions noted that his answers to Court person confessing. a mind dazed and resistance of the What bewildered.” “indicate[d] Adding to the detainee’s overpowering Id. distress was would to the weak of will be sinus,” “acutely painful utterly an attack of id. at might or mind be ineffective 718, police 74 S.Ct. at for which a against experienced an criminal.” v. Stein promised help. officer him medical York, 73 supra, 346 U.S. at S.Ct. New general practitioner eye, Instead of a or Schneckloth, (1953). 1093 also su at See specialist, police psychiatrist ear and nose a 225-26, at 93 S.Ct. at 2046- pra, U.S. knowledge hypnosis, considerable of with 47. Helfand,” interrogation “Dr. arrived above, significant As we have noted Helfand did not disclose the fact room. Dr. questioning typi- was in the portion of the psychiatrist. he His clever mode, developing police interrоgation cal technique Leyra’s con- questioning induced chronologically Miller’swhereabouts on the psychiatrist Leyra fession. The told “how question, confronting him with the day him, much he wanted to and could how car, asking point- him identification of his [Leyra] it would if he did not bad be he committed the blank as whether confess, much and how better would answers, crime, challenging at- his feel, lighter and how much and easier it tempting the details of the to discover just if would be on him he would unbosom interrogation portion crime. This 559-60, 74 himself to the doctor.” Id. at upon Miller’s not have an effect would will. S.Ct. at 718-19. Moreover, interrogation did not last suffering very long, and Miller was these statements a resem- While bear depri- physical any painful ailment made Detective from blance the statements impel vation that would him to job, confess Frank. This is job. our This is order to be released questioning from the what want to do. room. Nor did Miller presence seek the of By Miller: sending me back there. down or, any person indeed, other any make re- It also apparent prior Miller’s quest by Boyce. that was denied experience with the law made wary him policemen. Boyce’s promises psychiatric While Boyce: ... You have problem this like help and statements that Miller was “not a before, we talked about right? criminal,” in friendly combination with his Yeah, Miller: you, you say now, manner, may psycho- been form of thing goes to court and everything logical trickery, do not we believe that

these elements of the affect- No, Boyce: listen please ed the voluntariness of the confession. listen to me. The issue now is what characteristics, personal Miller’s supra see happened. The issue now is truth. confes- that the a conclusion support at Truth is the issue now. got You’ve seem Miller does not voluntary, for sion was this, believe and the prevails truth will would type person whose to be end, Frank. You have to believe Mil- by Boyce’s remarks. easily overborne sincere, that and I’m when I’m saying experience ren- intelligence and age, ler’s you. it to got You’ve to be truthful persua- to the level him resistant dered yourself. employed. siveness that Yeah, truth, Miller: end, say in the right? That’s why I done three and a Moreover, interview, throughout the Mil- years half for ... ler made remarks that indicate that he Boyce: Wait, whoa ... whoa ordinary police knew this was an inter- Miller: ... for a crime that never com- rogation, rather than an encounter with a mitted because of one stinkin’ detec- friend, compassionate and that he was framing tive me ... aware that a confession would result in Boyce: Frank, Frank. prosecution possibly criminal in convic- Miller: ... the name of Roccо. tion Throughout and sentence. the ses- statements, Given these isit difficult for us sion, appears suspi- have retained a to believe that Miller was tricked into con- cious, guarded point, attitude. At one fessing. Rather, it seems that Miller made Boyce when Detective him asked if he an uncoerced decision to unburden his in- uh, help, replied, “Yes, huh, wanted Miller ner tensions acknowledge and to guilt. his yes, I’m, yet going but I’m not to admit Indeed, from tape interroga- of the that, that I wasn’t involved in.” tion, clearly appears precipitat- that the statement, reply In to the “I don’t think ing cause of Miller’s confession was a de- criminal, Frank,” you’re said, “No, Miller sire to it, make a clean breast of rather you’re trying but to make me one.” The than a reliance any promises on of leniency following exchange illustrates even more psychiatric help. expressed He the res- clearly Miller’s distrustful attitude toward ervation going that “this is to kill my fa- the Detective: ther.” Thereupon, Detective made a Boyce: It’s hard I realize speech importance about the of truthful- that, is, how is, hard it how difficult it ness both for family. himself and his Mil- you’ve, realize got to help capitulated ler immediately thereafter. yourself, before anybody else can help Apparently, he Boyce’s took words to heart you. And we’re going to see it that and decided that it would be better for all you get proper help. This is our concerned if he told the truth.13 13. The dissent states that we do not make much concealing released from the terrible burden of However, collapse. crime, Miller’s recognize we might just such a heinous well as react possibility psyche, upon that the being human Miller’s did after a confession.

613 case, have little doubt Detective cumstances of this We confession was words, perhaps voluntarily given. Boyce’s encouraging the sad announcement combination with V. CONCLUSION died, just helped Miller the victim had his decision to unburden himself.

to reach Exercising plenary review, standard of However, for voluntariness is not a the test we have concluded totality that under the test, question but a of whether the circumstances, but-for Miller’s confession product was a of free choice. confession voluntary and therefore admissible. out, pointed has As the Eleventh Circuit judgment of the district court will be do not “mere emotionalism and confusion affirmed. necessarily invalidate” confessions. Corn Zant, 549, (11th Cir.1983), v. 708 F.2d 567 GIBBONS, Judge, dissenting: Circuit part grounds, on other 772 vacated When this unfortunate case was last be (11th Cir.1985). Many F.2d 681 criminals court, panel majority, fore this dis experience urge during interrogation to regarding long and consistent line of crimes, Rogge, up Why to their see O. own Supreme precedent, Court héld that (1959), quoted 209-30 in Gra Men Confess question of voluntariness of a confession no, Voluntariness, Will, Free and the question upon was a of fact which a federal 859, Confessions, 65 Va.L.Rev. Law of exercising corpus jurisdiction court habeas Driver, (1979); n. 131 and the Confessions findings must defer to the of state courts.1 Coercion, 82 Harv.L. Psychology Social ruling placed That this court at odds with (1968). Boyce’s Rev. manner and his eight federal circuits that had considered may urge statements have stirred this surprisingly, Supreme the issue. Not Miller, but, view, they pro in our did not Court reversed and remanded to this court psychological pressure strong enough duce light for reconsideration in of its reiteration mature, experi to overbear the will of a of the settled law that federal tribunals man, suffering enced who was from no plenary should amake determination of the physical illness interro mental or and was “whether, question totality under the gated police for less an hour at a than circumstances, the confession was ob station close to his home. tained a manner consistent with the Con — stitution____” Fenton, interroga- Detective method of Miller v. U.S. —, might tion have overborne the will of an- 88 L.Ed.2d 405 S.Ct. detainee, (1985). Undaunted, example, young, other for inex- the author of perienced person intelligence prior opinion of lower than court’s reaches the same re Miller, sult, suffering holding person painful by or a from a that as a matter of law oral Miller, physical might ailment. It have overcome admissions Frank M. Jr. were interroga- the will of Miller himself if the obtained in a manner consistent with the longer supporting In tion had or if Miller had been Constitution. that conclu been food, sion, however, sleep, per- majority opinion the refused or contact with a careful Moreover, among if the of the circum ly totality son he wished to see. Miller selects refer, it takes had made remarks that indicated that he stances which chooses context, ignores the sole truly believed that the state would treat statements out of officer, interrogating leniently respon- purpose him “not of the because was significance strong he had done or that he attaches no evidence sible” psychiatric will was More that he would receive that Miller’s overborne. believed over, thoroughly piece punishment, might by endorsing a bad rather than we work, police majority signal sends a voluntary. the We hold of the find confession police community in this circuit that simply totality under the of the cir- to the Jersey judges, Jersey judges the issue of volun- all of who considered 1. In this instance the New legal recognized they deciding the confession in issue to were tariness found whom issue, badly involuntary. New were divided. Six оf eleven likely is the harmful consequence to have utes Miller made incriminating no admis- encouraging coercion of defendants in sions. During the last eleven minutes of place acceptable investiga- interrogation, however, methods of orally Miller killing tion. admitted Margolin. Deborah He then collapsed and was hospi- removed to a tal. I. The appeal issue in this is Mil- serving whether Miller is a life sentence for the admission, ler’s totality under the of the Margolin.

murder of Deborah On the af circumstances, was 13, obtained a manner August Margolin ternoon of 1973 Ms. consistent with the The total- sunbathing patio Constitution. parents’ was on the of her ity of the circumstances relevant to that approached. farmhouse when a white car inquiry purpose includes the of Officer neared, Margolin’s As the car Ms. brothers Boyce’s interrogation, the methods used in observed that the trunk had been tied shut that interrogation, and the effects of those right-hand and that two dents marred its upon methods Miller. side. Transcript, Trial Dec. 1973 at . At State v. Miller least one of the II. brothers sufficiently observed driver majority The commences analysis note that he its wearing was male loose-fit with the observation: ting clothes. Id. at 169. With her brother house, listening from the significant driver told A portion questioning of the Margolin Ms. that a heifer was loose at the typical police was interrogation driveway. got mode, base of the She the fami developing chronologically Miller’s ly car and drove driveway. down the day whereabouts on question, con- When she failed to return later that after fronting him with the identification of his noon, party a search car, combed the asking area near point-blank him whether he body her home. Her lying was found crime, face committed challenging his an- stream, down in a her throat slashed. and attempting swers to discover the de- tails of the crime. This element of the description of the car fit a car driven interrogation unexceptional and un- by Frank Miller. Miller was known to the challenged. Jersey New State Police because he was Majority opinion at 601. The majority is parole then on from a 1969 conviction for says correct when it this element of the carnal At abuse. 10:50 P.M. on the eve- interrogation is unchallenged. Miller ning Margolin’s has body found, that Ms. challenge no reason to police part because that two officers located the car Mil- does not tend to incrimi- plastic ler factory at a where Miller nate him. The assertion that it is unexcep- inspection worked. An car revealed tional, however, illustrates the fundamental right-hand two dents on the side and a difference between majority and the spring holding dis- down the trunk. At the respect sent with to the values that plastics animate factory police the two officers in- procedural the safeguards against self- terrogated forty fifty minutes, Miller for to years incrimination. Many ago Justice tape-recording part interrogation. Frankfurter articulated clearly those values incriminating statement, Miller made no when he observed that agreed accompany but them to the state police They [ojurs barracks. arrived at the bar- opposed is the as accusatorial midnight. placed racks at Miller was in inquisitorial system. the the Such has been kitchen guard Anglo-American of the barracks under of the characteristic of another officer an justice system for over hour. At 1:47 criminal since it freed it- August 14, Boyce A.M. on Officer Charles practices by self from the borrowed Star Chamber____ began tape-recorded interrogation a second system society Under our interrogation of Miller. The fifty- proving charges lasted carries the burden of its three minutes. the forty-two against For first min- the his accused not out of own case, Margolin’s by not of Ms. brothers had seen some- its It must establish mouth. fitting generally description Miller’s under one of the accused even interrogation could in shortly inde- before the homicide and all by evidence safeguards, but judicial They identify likelihood him. could reason- through skillful inves- pendently secured ably anticipate that an examination of Mil- tigation. produce ler’s automobile would evidence 49, 54, Indiana, v. 338 U.S. 69 S.Ct. Watts Margolin’s linking him to Ms. death be- 1347, 1350, (1949) (plurality 93 L.Ed. 1801 car contained fresh blood stains. cause the is the the opinion). That ideal which Con- suspects. They had no other aspire stitution demands that we and is the by standard which we should consider wheth- did need to conduct police Thus the not interrogation by er the conducted Officer investigating interrogation an directed at Boyce unexceptional. Unfortunately, murder; already so far the it was solved as pay lip the courts service to the ideal they police while concerned. The could were not, imposing prosecuting have, restraints on place lineup attor- did Miller in a so but court, legal posturing place person in neys takes he could be identified as the who have, Margolin. They police completed spoke after the have their investi- to Ms. could not, willing attempt did to locate other wit- gation. Unless this court is to find but might placed nesses who Miller near in interrogation place took have, They the crime. could unconstitutional, the scene of it will be be case to not, attempt did to find witnesses who was, but Miller which tried placed, as the court being story Miller’s about would undercut ratifying plea merely position of Instead, Ringoes Post Office. at the police already had ob- guilty that of police an directed conducted proceeding. Chamber tained its Star obtaining confession from the sole at suggest that an interro- mean to I do not interrogation was de- suspect, and that legitimate tool of investi- gation is never a prosecution for signed assure Miller’s However, suggest, contrary I do gation. lesser offense. felony murder rather than a interrogation that an majority, to the obviously although For not purpose and is used investigative has no confession, significant circumstance majority, the most obtaining of only as a means supporting the conclusion In this case in this case unexceptional. anything in a man- was obtained purpose no Miller’s admission interrogation of Miller had is the with the Constitution could ner inconsistent obtaining admissions that other than legitimate any of investi- complete mur- absence charge felony Miller with used to be interrogation. gative purpose for the interrogation requires der. Such provide this case a classic circumstances of scrutiny. closest practice of of the once common illustration in- the second When commenced obtaining guilty pleas in the back rooms police had in their terrogation, the state open court. police stations rather than automobile, unique his which possession Moreover, of the method the evidence sufficiently by Ms. Mar- described had been light interrogation must be examined promptly led them golin’s brothers that it purpose obtain- Boyce’s sole Officer —the already They had determined to Miller. guilt, not the solution ing of admissions and thus factory of Miller’s shift the hours Boyce believed of a crime which during the that he was not at work knew already. solved already in- period. They had critical time obtaining a confes- in mind that Keeping dur- terrogated him about his whereabouts crime, sion, was Officer investigating a period and learned ing the critical time conducting in- purpose sole Ringoes, New at the a claimed alibi methods he em- terrogation, I to the Office, turn easily could Jersey which Post Boyce majority notes that ployed. The morning. They knew upon in checked the physi- engaged in no threats and “made no he was a sexual- past his record that from Majority opinion at of Miller.” coercion cal one They ly-disturbed person. knew only in the is true That statement 601. ferent effect than the majority attributes beat physically Boyce did not sense interrogation to the in its abridged account. however, intended, to divert It is Miller. impression conveyed by tape The the re- setting was the the fact that from attention cording is even compelling. more The ad- apprehend- Miller inherently coercive. was missions, during which came the last elev- night, interro- place late at of work ed at his minutes, product Boyce’s en were the of hour, and then nearly for an gated there investiga- factual misstatements about the kept in He was police to a barracks. taken tion, misrepresentations his inten- about interro- guard Boyce’s until under isolation tions, promises. and false majority The postponed Boyce could have began. gation Boyce concedes that lied in to Miller one Miller, just had who interrogation until the respect. In material fact were far there factory shift, night’s a a obtained finished more than the majority lies one that so the sleep. Instead he commenced interro- cavalierly discounts. gation at 1:47A.M. for purpose the obvious obtaining signature After a on a Mi- maximizing impact of inherently card, warning Boyce randa commenced the environment in coercive which Miller found interrogation by going back over state- himself. made ments Miller in the majority Boyce The stresses that “re- plastics at the factory. Although the ma- peatedly sympa- assured Miller was that he suggests jority otherwise, transcript to him help thetic him wanted to un- throughout discloses that the inter- second Admittedly, Boyce his burden mind.” Id. rogation was a continuation of first feign Miller, sympathy clearly did interrogation. The inquiry line of unburdening Boyce’s Miller’s mind was prior produced statements slight discrep- assurances, purpose. repeated ancy respect time, with Boyce which manner, friendly, understanding and the raising as big question described “a mark of soft tone voice to majority which the my right pointed mind now.” He then makes reference were all directed to a sin- out that fresh blood had been found on the gle purpose making unwilling an defend- — portion left front interior of Miller’s ve- guilt. ant his Referring admit to the detec- was, hicle. This statement was It true. tive’s statement of sympathy as “maudlin” however, just about the last true statement word, is deceptive. Every every nuance of Boyce Immediately made. thereafter he expression, every voice, change in of tone exaggerated: end, was calculated toward one and one witness, Frank, We have a now only obtaining guilt. end an of admission — point is this 4. We have who a witness opinion From tone of majority one car, who, no, I’m, your identified might actually that its believe author cred- your car, let sorry, say shouldn’t deceptive expressions its these of sympa- who identified a vehicle that fits the thy. majority But as the well knows the description car, girl’s this at poliсe state are not in the business act- home, speaking her, telling her ing religious or psychiatric as counselors. something being about a cow loose. Boyce sympathetic. was not He was no Someone who was wanted there who more interested in helping Miller “unbur- her, tensions,” they didn’t to hurt opinion inner at want majority den his girl, they hurt didn’t want to any aspect than other girl, they help her. wanted to health. was deter- Miller's Instead see, this, that, You know know ultimately successful obtain- mined ing unwilling an the one from defendant Yeah. purpose

thing that was his confession. appreciate BOYCE: ... because I can —a because would have done same opinion appendix Annexed to this as an If transcript interrogation. thing. there was to be rectified, prob- Keeping Boyce’s singular mind, or if purpose somebody had transcription conveys entirely lem, thing. dif- I would have done the same Immediately following the logical ploys. The help her. wanted to have I would Boyce again exaggerated: exchange, noted property onto the came vehicle guy driving this car I think the BOYCE: wait, forgot something let ... Right. MILLER: description physical have a ... ... We description of fits the ... BOYCE: huh. MILLER: Uh vehicle. this individual from anoth- ... of BOYCE: It does. MILLER: physical description The er witness. Now, fourth that’s the Yes. BOYCE: Frank, ... descrip- the sayI fits And when point. MILLER: Yeah. Frank, mean, is it fits the tion, Iwhat Fits and the clothes ‘t,’ BOYCE: ... and as we talked to a description wearing. were before, many other vehicles how county right yours like are there only general a de- police In the had fact above, now? never both- scription, and as noted lineup. if As a result no identifi- many, ered with a shouldn’t be too There MILLER: at trial. cation of Miller was introduced any---- Immediately confronting Miller with after any If BOYCE: identification, conclusive supposedly damage on Because MILLER: ploy adopted psychological Boyce right-hand side. offering problem: Miller with his Now, your conclusion what would BOYCE: you’re I don’t think BOYCE: circumstances, if some- those be under you’re a crimi- criminal. don’t think you that? one told have a criminal nal. don’t think uh, same have the probably, I’d MILLER: fact, I know mind. As a matter got. conclusion mind, because have a criminal don’t is what? BOYCE: Which talking now for a few been we’ve this. guy that did That together, we? hours haven’t did what? That Right. crime. MILLER: Committed Right? identifying to a witness The reference MILLER: Yeah. since the car car, exaggerated, while mind. a criminal You don’t have witness, was at to the not been shown had No. with the facts. generally consistent least But, like I don’t. know strong- to what was But the reference before, problems. we all have noted clearly in- against Miller was est evidence Right. per- suggestion that the tertwined with right? Am I Margolin’s property on the who сame son Yeah, there at you said this over purpose. there for a beneficent came plant. said, “If there was When you agree me? And rectified, somebody prob- if had

to be Yes, sir. thing,” lem, done the same I would have you have. problems coupling the refer- purpose of his obvious Right. strongest evidence with the state’s ence to Now, prob- you solve how do good inter- to a Samaritan’s the reference lem? to break down loose heifer was est problem. depends in the inter- on the Up point to that That

Miller’s will. Miller, acting consistently with rogation solve it? problem how do we Your interest, had re- was his own best it? going to solve How are we himself. fused to incriminate This I don’t know. solve help you you want me Do was the BOYCE: good reference Samaritan it? psycho- similarly devious

first of a series MILLER: Yeah. If I problem had a your prob- like lem, I would want help to me You want me to extend all the my problem.

help possibly give you, I can you? don’t Uh, MILLER: Right. MILLER: huh. Now, you willing

BOYCE: Are to do the same to BOYCE: know what I’m talking me? about.

MILLER: Yeah. MILLER: Yeah. Now, I feel ... know, that, uh, BOYCE: And I and I think a lot of people MILLER: Yeah. other know. You know talking what I’m about. I don’t think ever, BOYCE: ... who is whoever is re- you’re criminal, a Frank. sponsible for this act ... No, you’re MILLER: but trying to MILLER: Yeah. make me one. BOYCE: He’s not a criminal. Does not not, not, have a criminal BOYCE: No they mind. think I’m no I’m but I aproblem want to talk to me so we can [sic]. thing this worked out. This is Uh, what I huh. want, want, this is what I Frank. you agree Do with me? there, mean it’s all it’s all I’m there. MILLER: Yeah. saying ... They problem. have a (Emphasis supplied). point this [At Right. phone rings Boyce answers it]. problem, BOYCE: A good thing and a This colloquy establishes that the interro- about that problem is a can be gation is a continuation of interrogation rectified. that occurred several hours earlier at Mil- MILLER: Yeah. place ler’s employment. It also estab- help BOYCE: I want you. to I mean I lishes suggestion really help want know help “problem” would Miller with his they say, helps what God those who made the earlier as well. help themselves, Frank. Although majority opinion selectively Right. quotes colloquy, from this conveniently got get together We’ve on this. omits unequivocal denial of Miller’s about, You I’m talking know what trying accusation that he was to make him you? don’t criminal rather than him. Yeah, especially they’re trying if Immediately following interruption that, know, say that like telephone call, which occurred about say, I’m my identified and car’s identi- twenty minutes interrogation, into the Mil- fied, uh, got get together we on Boyce responded: ler asked and this. question. MILLER: Let me ask Now, BOYCE: Yes only we do. that’s BOYCE: Sure. few of the items ... dead, you say girl’s MILLER: Now Uh, huh. right? ... that we have now. Your just ago. BOYCE: She died a few minutes problem, not, forget I’m let’s this inci- just got ... that’s what the call was dent, okay ... about. MILLER: Yeah. MILLER: Cause Officer Scott said she was incident, forget

BOYCE: ... let’s let’s hospital and I said well then let’s what, your problem. talk about This is go, go right over there. with, Frank, this is concerned your problem. hospital BOYCE: She was in the ... Right. And, uh ... uh, Doyle Detective this is know the call that ... that’s, that call was. that’s what got, That what? Cause, him I told Well, shame, it’s a uh ... acknowledging po- majority, say you? BOYCE: What did she lied to Miller that Ms. previously

lice had Beg your pardon? MILLER: Boyce re- Margolin survived and that had say you? did she BOYCE: What death, her the lie the time of peated about MILLER: Who? trickery in a attempts put the deliberate light, observing, girl? This positive BOYCE: that the lie about the We do not believe girl. MILLER: I never talked to this If death, itself, Margolin’s by time of Ms. now, she was walk in here I trickery sufficient to over- constituted know, wouldn’t know that she was the Boyce never come Miller’s will. Because that, girl uh, you’re talking about. Margo- the of Ms. suggested that time you BOYCE: But were identified being as linking might relevant in lin’s death be talking there to her minutes before she crime, only possible Miller to the probably was ... thing hap- this that initial statement that effect pened to you her. How can explain alive, by report that she was followed his that? died, an emotional just she had would be MILLER: I can’t. response in Miller. Why? BOYCE: There are several opinion at 607. Majority I, I, why, you MILLER: I don’t know but justifi- attempted deficiencies this glaring know, I explain something how can that, First, ignores plain fact it cation. anything that I don’t know about. to Miller that Ms. initially suggesting by Frank, look, want, you want survived, police intended to Margolin help, don’t Frank? that she impression leave him with him. eventually identify When I’m, would huh, Yes, yes, yet uh MILLER: breaking unsuccessful proved to be ploy going I’m not to admit to will, Boyce shifted to a different his down I in. that wasn’t involved tactic, falsely, she had announcing, to, I don’t want all want BOYCE: We hoped, majority con- as just died. you to do is talk to that’s all. I’m cedes, response in an emotional to evoke talking admitting any- not about attempt Admitting that this was Miller. Frank, me. I want to talk to thing, coercion, majority ex- psychological at you think. I to tell me what want preposterous state- away with the plains I to tell me how think want “However, ment, suggests that the record this, you think this? what about occur, did not for it this emotional reaction I think about it? MILLER: What all was not affected at appears that Miller BOYCE: Yeah. Majority opin- of the death.” by the news really I think whoever did it actually record dis- 607. What the ion at help. needs as interrogation continued closes that the And I think and that’s follows: don’t, They they that’s what I know. I you feel what feel Are do punishment, right? Like don’t need right now? said, help. they need pretty MILLER: I feel bad. Right. talk to me about youDo want to punishment. They don’t need it? good help. They help, need medical nothing I tell ... can There’s right. MILLER: That’s you feel? About how problem. Put- rectify their ... in, going to talk, prison in a isn’t ting I them nothing I can there’s it, mean, solve is it? girl, sorry mean I feel No, sir. right there out that’s case. Is that years. for three and a half wrong? the, right. That’s That’s that’s Yeah, that, they should exam- going problem to solve is it? and, uh, you know, ined maybe a doc- No, you get no there. down wrong tor could find out what’s to, thing you The only learn is how em. know ... BOYCE: Have ever been examined? Well, say sup- let’s MILLER: Yes. pose you person were the who needed problem? BOYCE: And did have a help. somebody What would want Well, come, uh, when made you? to do for in, uh, parole September, stipu- uh Help me. was, uh, lation psychia- see a In way? BOYCE: what trist. see, any way they, they MILLER: In that Alright BOYCE: ... know, you fit, help it me. that would Taylor MILLER: Doctor over at the here What, you compels what BOYCE: do think Center, two, Medical I maybe seen him somebody something to do like this. three times and last time I was there is, you What do think it Frank? gave he ame test ... Well,

MILLER: it could be anumber [sic] Uh, BOYCE: huh. of things. uh, MILLER: ... it of bunch bull example. me BOYCE: Give an shit, plain English. big If the wheel that, person MILLER: It could abe that way, way turns one what does the uh, drinks, you know, lot, just, and little I wheel turn? So took that test. know, you they, don’t know what what alright, says, says, say He I he when they they drinking. did once been It back, part do I come this of somebody could be with narcotics because my parole. they’re, you don’t know what know, they’re doing once they I BOYCE: see. up pills shot or took some or whatever uh, he says, MILLER: And I’ll call and do, know, they drug I don’t I’m not a know, says get let he want addict and never intend to be. this, up work this test out He first. else BOYCE: What Frank? What other date, the man has never called type person something would do like uh ... this? do feel BOYCE: How this? Somebody prob- MILLER: with a mental Well, wrong. I think it’s lem. you, BOYCE: Would do did feel Right. Somebody with a ... finding that after not out the results of problem MILLER: Mental ... you might something that test that do problem, BOYCE: ... serious mental might responsible not be for? in, know what I’m interested I’m MILLER: No. not, in, I’m preventing interested capa- Did feel that were this in the future. ble, doing maybe, something be- Right. cause didn’t the results of this Now, don’t think it’s better if they like, help you, ... because didn’t someone knows that he she has a they? did problem mental to come forward with MILLER: No. look, I’ve, I've, say, it and I’ve done Well, acts, then feel this, did still responsible

these way might happen something helped, I want to be I couldn’t because, myself, myself I had as no control of would be their fault as far hap- if I’m properly you’ll examined find I’m concerned did if their your fault, it’s Officer Scott until heard from pen, it’s not her yes, says, ... and she said she I did tell fault him, says, So, she had to tell him. Right. my lawyer, you then when talked to part that was a ... because know, him, I admitted to I admitted to your parole ... officer, my parole I said I’m not mak- Right. ing girl, a liar out of the cause I love they up didn’t live to it. BOYCE: ... admitted, you her too much and so I Right. having he asked me if we were agree You with me? sex ... Yeah, that ... Alright. What ... So, therefore, you did commit if and, uh, ... had no intentions act, actually they’re the ones that making a liar out of her. blame, my eyes are to ... (Emphasis supplied). point, At this twenty- Right. interroga- seven minutes into the second an individual. as tion, briefly interrupted it was while the seeking help. You You were there recording cassette was turned over. there, they right, you went went didn’t by spent had then seven attempt- minutes right? voluntarily, there ing capitalize on the response emotional was, uh, Right. It it was all set attempted staged phone to elicit his up through ... Margolin’s call about Ms. recent death. I up. It BOYCE: was all set judge leave it to the reader to whether this well, board, my parole the or MILLER: ... that, colloquy in establishes the words of officer, up. I it At parole believe set opinion, majority the Miller “remained Gene, was, uh, uh, time it DiGen- that quite impassive.” Majority opinion at 607. nie, I believe his name was. Having tape recording listened to the on BOYCE: DiGianni. occasions, represent several I that Miller MILLER: DiGianni. sounds, point interrogation, at this of the in- Frank, very, very nervous. you’re creasingly tense and emotional. So emo- know, Now, I, don’t; you you, you’re, I tional, indeed, interrogator, that the Boyce, saying? you understand what stated, “Frank, you’re very, very nervous.” Yeah, say- you’re I know what above, occurring colloquy immediate- ing. ly following Boyce’s lie about the time of Now, there’s a reason for death, by majority in is not mentioned isn’t there? police lies connection with because MILLER: Yes. result, majority, bent on a has chosen to Do want to tell me about it? judge police light conduct not in of the Being involved in like circumstances, totality of the subdi- this is ... viding police instance of misconduct each what, it, it, does it BOYCE: Is does does discussing it and it isolation. Thus visibly you physically? shake colloquy that immedi- chooses to treat the well, Yes, does, because, it Offi- ately Boyce’s followed lies under the head- you, tell it ain’t been not cer Scott can ing Boyce’s promises. These are dis- ago right a month I sat even observation, missed with the “While such a same room ... might made Miller feel statement Uh, speaking Boyce, huh. more comfortable about prod- his not render confession girl really that I would ... behind the the state uct of a mistaken belief loved, she a minor her because opinion leniency.” Majority making grant forced her into state- him father would cavalier ments, which, unfairness of she didn’t lie on the 610. The total at upon effect up I intended statements. tried to cover dismissal may judged light Miller’s will best be thing, I, I really, mean colloquy that continued as soon as the hеlp, you need proper help need tape recorder was on: turned it, God, know, know my you, you, God’s name listen to me Now Frank. This know it. criminal, You hurts me more than it are not a you, hurts be- are not I people. cause love criminal. you anymore

MILLER: It can’t hurt Yes, than Alright. I was over there it hurts me. and I talked to her about the cow and left. I left in Okay, Frank, my stopped car and I up listen I want where, you know,

on the road where the cow had been and she followed me being MILLER: I mean even involved in in her car ... something like this. Okay, listen Frank. promise (Emphasis supplied). Thus, approximately If to, you know, do all I can with the thirty minutes into the interroga- second psychiatrist everything, tion, and we Miller made his incriminating first get proper help you, By largest part statement. far the of that for proper help you, will talk thirty comprised minutes is of lies and to me about it? promises by Boyce. The majority’s sug- gestion can’t talk to promises some- that these lies and had no thing I’m upon not ... effect Miller’s specula- will is utter tion. promises The lies and were Alright, alright, listen directed purpose to the sole know, obtaining honest. a confes- going know what’s nothing sion. There is you, on inside the record Frank. I want from which it you, you can be inferred right between us that Miller’s now. aban- donment of going know what his self-interested on inside denials of Frank, you’ve got to involvement in the prod- come forward and homicide was the me help yourself. any tell want to uct of other majority influence. The got opinion You’ve to talk to me about it. This describes if conduct as only way confessor, is the we’ll be able to were a offering work it solace under the mean, know, listen, out. I confessional, I want seal of the psychiatrist or a help you, to because my offering are in anxiety relief from under the shel- mind, you responsible. are not You ter of a physician-patient privilege, rather responsible, Frank, are not Frank. than he wily interrogator what was—a de- what’s the matter? termined to break down Miller’s resistance promises. I lies and false majority’s feel bad. police treatment of the leading tactics to Frank, me, listen to honest to collapse Miller’s is about as fair as those God, (inaudi- I’m I’m telling you, Frank may good tactics. Confession for the ble). I going you, it’s to bother soul, freedom, but it was Miller’s not his Frank, going it’s you. to bother It’s soul, stake, that there, was at and it was his going go it’s not away, to it’s freedom, soul, not his that interested right there. It’s you, front of Boyce. right Frank. Am I wrong?

MILLER: Yeah. Once Miller made the placing blunder of Frank, BOYCE: You can it company, Boyce see himself the victim’s can it, it, feel quickly pressed can feel advantage. but are not his Miller at responsible. trying This is I’m attempted childishly first to concoct a im- you, you’ve got to tell plausible story witnessing but to come about an attack Don’t, don’t, by stranger. forward and tell me. Boyce continued with the don’t, assistance, don’t let it up, psychological ploy eat promising don’t fight got it, out, Frank, here, it. rectify saying, You’ve to I’m “Let it come Frank; got get together side, your We’ve on I'm here with I’m on now. side, brother, your I’m on Frank. this, volved in like being on parole I you and are brothers Frank. We are and ... brothers, help my and want brother.” (Emphasis supplied). persisted Miller in the tale When about the. The majority dismisses state- Frank, stranger, Boyce asked: “Listen ments with the comment Boyce that never guy, do know him? Do know any that he had authority to af- “state[d] he responded, where lives?” Miller charges against fect the Majority Miller.” “No, I don’t he know where lives.” At that opinion at 610. It is quite impossible to inaudible, point tape recording becomes gather any meaning other from the words indicating temporarily that Miller is unable going “and we’re you get to see that Then, Boyce to talk. time for first proper help. job, This is our Frank. This is directly, asked girl Miller “You killed the job. our This is what I want to do.” you?” prompted didn’t Miller’s denial By thirty-fifth minute of the interro- promises help: resort to further gation Boyce had an admission from Miller Honest, got Frank? It’s to come Margolin’s that Ms. body had been in his out. You can’t leave it in. It’s hard car, persisted but Miller still in his denial that, is, I realize how hard it that had killed point her. At that Boyce is, that, how difficult it I realize tactic, shifted to a new suggesting for the you’ve got help yourself any- before first time that the may homicide have been body help you. else can And we’re accident, thereby suggesting to Mil- going you get to see to it that way ler another which could proper help. This is job, our Frank. him. The continued: job. This is our This is Iwhat want this, Frank, BOYCE: I realize may it to do. been an possible, accident. Isn’t that By sending me back down there. Frank? Isn’t possible? now, BOYCE: Wait a second don’t talk Sure, possible. it’s going back down there. First Well, this is what I’m trying to thing we have to do is let it all come out, bring may Frank. It be some- fight worse, out. Don’t it’s because thing did can’t hurting it’s worse. It’s me be- is, be held accountable This / for. cause I feel it. wanting feel it help you, can help you can once out, hurting come but it’s Frank. tell me the truth. You know what I’m brother, my You’re I mean we’re talking help you, about. want this, brothers. All men on all men on Frank. you. like You’ve been hon- brothers, the face of this earth are est with me. You’ve been sincere and Frank, you got but to completely be I’ve way you. been same honest with me. Now this is the kind of relationship we be, trying you to but don’t have, you I help you but can’t unless want to believe me. complete tell me the truth. I’ll listen Frank, I BOYCE: want to believe but understand, you. to I Frank. You truth, I you Frank, want to tell me the have to believe I understand. I you talking know what I’m about understand how feel. I under- I you’re talking and know what about. stand how much it must hurt in- got

You’ve to tell the truth. I me can’t side. I know how feel because I help you without the truth. feel it day may too. Because some I Frank, be the same situation but Sure, telling you MILLER: I’m the truth. you’ve got yourself. help to Tell me that’s her blood in the car because exactly happened, what me tell I way when seen the she was cut I truth, Frank, please. her, help wanted to and then when she got fell over I trying scared to even be in- MILLER: I’m to tell the truth. help you. against BOYCE: Let me It could have be Boyce used him. immediately You, you’ve got been an accident. to thereafter reassured Miller: truth, me tell Prank. You know BOYCE: Whenever I anybody talk to I talk I talking help what I’m can’t about. way, have, the same because without the truth. Now know very, very problem, serious and we that’s, that’s, and I know that’s all that prevent anything want to in the future. counts, Frank. You know and I know important, Frank, This is what’s counts, that’s what that’s ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍what it’s all happened past. right It’s about. We can’t hide it from each now, now, Frank, living we’re we want know, other because both we but help to got now. You’ve a lot you’ve got willing help to your- to more, years a lot more to live. self. You I you’re don’t think No, I don’t. criminal. problem You have this like Yes, you do. before, talked right? we No, I don’t. Yeah, now, you, you say this say you BOYCE: Don’t you’ve don’t. Now thing goes to court and everything got to tell me. this, MILLER: Not after all because this is (Emphasis supplied). going my to kill father. Faced with Miller’s reference at totally out-of-place Miller’s reference to his point possible to the use of his admissions point suggests father at this highly emo- against him in court attempt and his tional and confused state of mind. Boyce prior experience law, discuss a with the immediately capitalized on his emotional prompted interrupt: by suggesting: state Wait, whoa, whoa got ... You’ve to do it for your-

self, your for family, your father, truth, this is important what’s Frank Frank. Just tell me. You didn’t mean to kill you? her did Frank, you, you’re talking to me have, now. We we relationship, have a this, BOYCE: What please made do don’t we? Have I been sincere with tell me. Please tell me now. What you, Frank? made do this? Yeah, yes. don’t know. ... have been honest? response, know,” Miller’s “I don’t forty- MILLER: Yes. interrogation, two minutes into the was the Have I problem, defined first statement that could be construed as Frank? willing Have been that he had slashed admission Ms. Mar- you? willing Have stated was golin’s point throat. At that the tone of help you all I can? interrogation immediately changed. MILLER: Yes. Although Boyce repeated twice more BOYCE: Do I mean it? “you’ve got Frank,” proper help, MILLER: Yes. just and “I want to cоme out and tell as soon as all,” Thus Miller’s mind turned to the help you, so I can that’s the dangerous possible area of interrogation quite crisp specif- self-incrimina- became Boyce steps negate broken, tion took immediate ic. Once Miller was inter- Miranda rogation whatever residual effects the carefully designed was to elicit warnings, given forty before, charge minutes evidence support that would a that might have immediately during had. He place attempt- reit- the homicide took only erated that he help- rape; charge Jersey was interested in ed that New ing Miller, obtaining not in felony admissions to amounts to murder. The last eleven that, Q. by do mean interrogation strikingly is What sir? of the minutes Miller, from what went before. different sitting A. He was on a chair —... Mr. thirty min- critical admission until the who chair, sitting Miller on a had been successfully interrogation had into the utes slid off the chair on the floor had Margo- admitting being with Ms. resisted maintaining a stare on his blank minutes lin, for the next twelve and who face, staring straight ahead and we her, kill he did not to maintain continued get any type of ver- were unable to through a series automaton led like an was him. response bal from totally incriminated him. of admissions Q. it he was then re- As understand interroga- in the tone The difference Hunterdon moved to the Medical minutes, of tion, during last eleven the Center, right? is that notice, indi- takes no majority the which Yes, squad first aid was A. contact- to resist self-incrimi- that Miller’s will cates immediately. ed had was overborne. nation been 4, 1973, 84-85, Transcript, Dec. at Trial ended at 2:45 tape-recorded session The v. Miller. State significance questions of A.M. The last Incredibly, only reference in the ma- were these: opinion collapse is jority’s to Miller’s willing to sit down you be BOYCE: Would cryptic sentence at the end of Part I: “One take a statement us while we interrogation, hour into the Miller confess- you? from Margolin, ed to the murder of Deborah MILLER: Yes. opinion Majority at 600. passed then out.” incorporated, you it can be BOYCE: So recognize not even majority The does me? follow into a catatonic state and collapse Miller’s Yeah. hospital as relevant transportation his help you. totality In order to in its of the circum- circumstances telling of in- analysis! This most all stances Uh, huh. the effect on Miller dications as to tape end of the recorded Thus even at the ignored. Instead simply is Boyce’s tactics represent session continued opinionperversely reasons that majority statement, which he could con- the written may statements Boyce’s manner and tape recording, veniently substitute for the “but, confess, urge in Miller the stirred may We was “In order to [Miller].” view, produce psyсhological they did not our reasonably certain that the written the will strong enough to overbear pressure statement, signed, it would have had been mature, man, who was suf- experienced of a only questions and answers contained physical il- mental or fering from no tape re- in the last eleven minutes of the ness____” opinion at 613. The Majority in es- cording, only these were useful ignores reasoning perverse is because felony tablishing that Miller committed interrogation at end of the fact that murder. hospital. to a collapsed and was taken Miller preserve why The reason the state had honestly represented that he it be How can tape-recorded interro- and make use of the physical suffering from no mental Boyce’s testimony at the gation appears And, majority identifies unless the illness? suppression hearing: abrupt aban- reason for Miller’s some other Q. gather statement was nev- that [a] his self-interested denials donment of taken, right? er psychological coercion exer- guilt than the was not. A. It cause is left? by Boyce, what other cised Q. Why was Officer? recording that while at tape reveals half of terminating lucid the second Momentarily after first Miller was A. fully far Miller he was from particular interview Mr. went It reveals erratic behavior it a state of oriented. into as I can best define with sudden lucidity interlaced moments of shock. 626 point, response At one in

withdrawal. and Boyce, childlike. hand, on the other question being the whether involved in strong-willed sounds like person a fully him, visibly like this shook Mil- knowledgeable about Miller’s psychological incongruous ler fell into an reverie about a prepared exploit weaknesses and them in lover, example, former also a minor. For order to overcome Miller’s will to avoid stated, Miller self-incrimination. Yes, does, because, well, it Officer Scott

can tell it ain’t been not even a III. ago I month sat in the same room ... girl loved, really behind the that I Just as selectively ignores be- it seg- critical cause she was a minor her father forced ments of the interrogation, the majority making statements, which, her into selectively ignores she precedent established didn’t lie on the statements. tried to its effort to legal justification concoct a up cover with Officer until I Scott heard holding Miller’s confession voluntary. The her yes, says, from and she said she I did concedes, majority enthusiasm, without him, So, says. tell she I had to tell him. that a confession interroga- obtained then my lawyer, you when talked to accompanied by tion physical violence is know, him, I admitted admitted to per deemed involuntary. se Majority opin- my officer, parole making said I’m not ion at 604. The majority also admits that girl, a liar out of the cause I love her too psychological coercion can equally often be admitted, much and so he effective in overcoming the constitutional and, asked me if having we were sex ... right to remain silent. Id. Finally, the ma- uh, I making had no intentions of a liar jority recognizes that the court must consid- out of her. er totality the of the circumstances. Id. at pathetic heroism, Whatever this mixture of 604. But instead treating of the issue as one self-pity, self-deception, depression law, of in which the reviewing weighs court may meant, surely is not indicative the circumstances to determine whether a of a mature man in control of his will to confession obtained such a totality of cir- resist. Nor sobbing tape does the on the cumstances violates appropriate norms of begins immediately after this nonsen- police conduct, majority makes the un- passage sical reveal a man in full control of assumption warranted that no matter how his faculties. Nor does palpably his imma- outrageously police behave, short of ture reference to the loss of his father’s violence, physical may confession be used esteem, Boyce promptly which took ad- if majority reviewing of a court arrives at vantage, suggest psychological mature de- subjective belief that the defendant’s velopment. only The sup- record evidence will overborne. point As I out in porting majority’s description of Miller II, Part the facts indicate that Miller’s will “mature, experienced as a man” is Miller’s was overcome. But a factual determination age. experienced No mature man in full of the effects on control of his faculties respond- would have Miller’s required. will is not As a matter of Boyce’s psychological ed to ploys inap- so police law some conduct in the interrogation propriately. implausible prevar- Indeed the process simply cannot be tolerated. ications to which he resorted in an effort to long It has explain been established that confes- away slip in admitting made by implied sions obtained virtue Margolin’s body that Ms. of even had been in his promises leniency car—the tale of are deemed to be inad- the man who came from nowhere, States, throat, cut her missible. See Bram v. United cut his hand— 532, 542-43, 183, 186-87, roughly response pre-ad- at the U.S. 18 S.Ct. level of a Miller, (1897). history majority attempts olescent child. L.Ed. 568 man with a ninth-grade authority mental illness and a undercut edu- Bram rule cation, tape recording, longer sounds on the suggesting interpreted that it is no transcription, against reads per proscription promises both unstable as a se

627 (1985); States, during interrogations. The twо Su- v. made Rachlin United 723 F.2d 1373, (8th Cir.1983). Therefore, support cited in of that 1377 preme Court eases when promises, slight, it. Both however do not sustain cases are made in the proposition interrogation room pres- made to a defendant in rather than the promises state counsel, attorney promises ence of those presence the defendant’s do render the the of resulting promises as confession inadmissible. suffer from the same vice not secrecy police interrogation in the of made Boyce’s interrogation second cannot be Ross, 28, 29, 429 rooms. Hutto v. U.S. See cumulative, in pieces. read Its effect was 202, 203, (1976)(per 50 L.Ed.2d 194 97 S.Ct. as it intended was to be. From the mo- curiam); States, Brady v. 397 United it, began Boyce put ment he psy- relentless 742, 754, 1463, 1472, 25 U.S. 90 S.Ct. chological pressure on Miller.3 re- (1970). Brady L.Ed.2d 747 The court made peatedly only assured Miller that he want- explicitly, explaining distinction Miller, ed to that Miller was not a given by dealt with a confession criminal, Bram responsible that Miller was not custody, unrepre- alone and defendant actions, for his and that Miller would not In by sented counsel. such circumstanc- punished. In express bé addition to these es, promise leniency mild of even a promises, Boyce by lying confused Miller confession, deemed sufficient to bar Margolin’s him of Ms. time death illegal promise was an because strength against and the of the evidence such, as because defendants at act Miller. too to induce- such times are sensitive majority The emphasizes key impact possible ment and the on too them whether, totality issue is of the cir- great ignore and too difficult to as- cumstances, Miller’s will was overborne. sess. agree majority’s general While I with the 754, at 1472. The 397 U.S. at 90 S.Ct. focus, disagree majority’s with the meth- Court cited and reiterated the Bram

Hutto analysis. ascertaining od of In the effects test, stating, “The test is whether the con interrogation Miller, of tactics on by any ‘extracted sort of fession was majority attempts place itself in Mil- violence, by any threats or obtained [or] position thereby ler’s evaluate the im- slight, implied promises, direct or however pact Boyce’s promises of and lies. Unfor- by any improper the exertion of influ [or] tunately, we cannot know what effects ” 30, ence.’ 429 U.S. at 97 S.Ct. at 203. promises and Miller’s those lies had on will. Supreme has never The Court retreated when, Instead what we can know is that as Indeed, holding.2 from the other Bram case, in this the record reveals a series of appeals circuit con federal courts repeated promises psychological help sistently cited the test as the stan Bram suspect and assurances that the will not be by dard which voluntariness will be evalu punished, requires as a Bram matter See, Costello, e.g., ated. v. resulting United States law that we hold the confession (7th Cir.1984); 553, 750 F.2d 555 United Any coerced. other rule leads to the Gonzalez, (4th 736 F.2d 982 subjective speculation States v. kind of that the ma- Cir.1984); Balkcom, engages 735 F.2d jority applying Jarrell v. in. Thus — Cir.1984), (11th denied, totality 1250 cert. Bram rule within the of the cir- U.S. —, interrogation, of Miller’s 105 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed.2d 848 cumstances4 Hutto, majority Brady The revealed in this 2. The misreads stat- 3. mode psychological record is similar to that relentless by ing, "Apparently, ‘obtained the words ... Denno, pressure Leyra U.S. condemned in v. 347 promises’ in the Bram test have been read to 556, 558-60, 716, 717-19, 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. 948 suspect’s will was mean ‘obtained because ” deception (1954). practiced upon The Miller is promises.’ Majority opinion overcome at practiced no different in kind from that misleading This is 608. an unfair and treatment 62, 63-65, Pennsylvania, Turner v. 338 U.S. cases, of those tantamount to the unfair and 1352, 1352-53, (1949). S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 1810 misleading treatment of the record. to, totality majority applies,

4. refers of the circumstances test as if that test meant confession used to commit Miller must be tion Road. occurring This death some- as a of declared inadmissible violation Mil- time approximately between 11:15 right to ler’s fifth amendment remain si- A.M., 8/13/73, P.M., and 5:45 8/13/73. lent. Now, Miller, BOYCE: Mr. uh

Conclusion talked to' earlier. Yeah, MILLER: at PFD. judges majority, The determined at any cost to the end that no relief reach will At PFD you’re employed. where given they person be to a feel to be the accompanied by Trooper Robert offense, perpetrator of a heinous have dis- Scott at that time. torted record misstated the law Yes, sir. respect permissible police to methods BOYCE: We identified ourselves and we interrogation. I share their obvious ab- spoke voluntary on a basis well, horrence of Mr. Miller’s offense. It is your which cooperation extended however, to recall Justice Frankfurter’s ad- us, uh, regards investiga- to this triumphs monition that “law when the nat- girl tion of the death of that have impulses by shocking ural aroused crime just mentioned. yield safeguards which our civilization Yes, sir. has evolved for an administration of crimi- agreed time, BOYCE: You at that volun- justice nal at once rational and effective.” tarily, speak regards with us in Indiana, v. 49, 55, Watts 338 U.S. S.Ct. this matter ... 1347, 1350, (1949). 93 L.Ed. 1801 The ma- Yes, sir. jority yielded has to the impulses natural gave permission BOYCE: ... also us while safeguards rather than to the that the law your we were there to look at vehicle imposed has to restrain abusive methods of interrogation. I dissent. Yes, sir. *

APPENDIX clothing your to take from Testing Testing 12 3. 12 3. locker (Cough) Testing Testing 12 3. Tuesday (cough), Tuesday, Au- Yes, sir. gust 14, 1973, A.M., Flemington 1:47 BOYCE: ... which is located inside the Barracks, State Police Detectives’ plant, done, PFD being all of this room, interroga- this is the start of an course, cooperation with the that was tion Dоyle, between Detective William extended to us from on a volun- 1884, Police, Jersey New State Detec- tary basis. Boyce, tive also from the New Right. Police, Jersey State and one Frank Now, Frank, Miller, you’ve been here

Melvin and this is approximately since 11:49 P.M. investigation reference to the now being actually yesterday, which would conducted which involves the going death of Margo- Miss Deborah Selma 8/13/73. What to do at this lin, female, and, course, age just white time let me reit- Brown Sta- Road, here, Ringoes, Jersey. you, you, you down, tion R.D. erate New came correction, That's a you accompanied Trooper that’s Bowne Sta- Scott and test, however, legal applied. Boyce’s repeated that no rules The factors to offset the effects proposition. promises. does not stand for such an absurd Instead, totality of the circumstances test requires that the court review the entire record Appendix reprint copy of a of the *This is single components. Legal and not focus on transcript tape-recorded interrogation. if, circumstances, apply rules still under all the transcript was offered into evidence at Mil- suspect’s rights constitutional have been vio- transcript reprint- ler’s trial as Exhibit 4. The case, mitigating verbatim, lated. In Miller’s there are no typos ed included. Yes, Frank, go let me over that again. voluntary basis ... myself here on that correct? Yeah, understand Right. free Okay, and of own You your rights, understand will? Frank? Yes, sir. MILLER: Yeah. Without duress? Okay, (cough). may BOYCE: stop You Yes, MILLER: sir. during anytime interrogation at having Or been threatened to

BOYCE: . do so. MILLER: Yeah. Right. MILLER: BOYCE: request ... and to remain si- Okay, you and while were here BOYCE: lent and we will your honor request. again conversing been on a vol- you’ve MILLER: Yes. basis, Scott, untary Trooper with Okay? BOYCE: right? that MILLER: Yeah. Yes, MILLER: sir. Now, BOYCE: talking we’re about the (cough). going I’m Okay What BOYCE: young girl, Frank, death of a right? time, to do at this as I’ve indicated Yes, MILLER: sir. awhile, here for it already, you’ve been attractive, very very BOYCE: ... at- 14th, 2:00 A.M. on the is now almost young girl, tractive apparently who at 2 puts you approximately here which wearing the time of her death was going you hours. I’m to advise at this suit, nothing bathing piece but a two rights, your time of constitutional bathing suit. We feel that there’s a to, you which are entitled and start off aspect good sexual at this time is a 1, you by saying: Number have the type indication that there is some right not to to remain silent and an- sexual assault that’s associated with you if any questions, Number swer continue, this crime ... Before we right your

decide to waive to remain you to what would like to ask silent, anything you say will be used is, sign going you do to ask to against you incriminating if it is card, okay, your back of this right rep- nature. You have the to be it, indicating rights you on that fact attorney resented an before have been ... during any questioning. If want one, Yeah, attorney yeah an an and cannot afford MILLER: ... attorney provided free will be rights. your advised of BOYCE: Jersey. Do by the State of New got pen right MILLER: I here. rights, these Frank? understand sign the of that and BOYCE: Just back Yes, sir. noices.) (Clanging Today’s date it. willing

BOYCE: Are to talk to us the 14th. attorney? having without In refer- signed You it the 14th? want ence ... Yes, please. MILLER: Yes. Alright. the, talked BOYCE: ... what we have Okay. about? Alright? MILLER: Yes. Now, getting you. Thank back Okay, fine. uh, the, Margolin, Miss the death of discussing, you already But, though, I which we were any at time at the mean, Trooper Scott

can, uh, no, right? related to me and say as to did it that time which know ... 630

vehicle from Ringoes Post Office your activi- father’s were where house? yesterday. were ties depends MILLER: That on how fast right. Right, go. you came back indicated You Okay, let’s if drive at a say 11:00 Ringoes area about into speed. normal rate of A.M., is correct? say maybe I’d 20 minutes. there, It somewheres minutes. far would How 20 little bit of time. give yeah, or take is, Frank? say try and narrow Let’s any- miles, maybe. think of down, Oh, 7 Frank. Can give you any indica- thing that would Now, indi- you’ve miles. say now came why you tion as prior cated once sometime around into the area back 12. Now you got home around o’clock. 11:30, to 12. quarter indicated you’ve I at Well, you is what told this MILLER: home, get Now, you did time what at PFD. I barracks, I mean or the Frank? 11, uh, around figured it between was exactly sure. I’m not MILLER: o’clock, figured got I I 11 because not sure. you’re Now now BOYCE: 12, 11:30, quarter to back home around I, uh, figure I Well, I say, MILLER: I had my parents’ house and to o’clock, to 12 from 11:30 anywheres Ringoes in Post Office stopped at the 12, around somewheres quarter to forgot I to mail mail a letter which to ... there morning. yesterday morning, or Alright ... BOYCE: but, in other words Alright, BOYCE: at look because I didn’t you MILLER: ... is can I’m Frank how saying what mind, clock. your in your in substantiate mind ... it Why you think Okay. do BOYCE: around there? Uh, somewhere MILLER: huh. was how, why you I some- got myself to wh ... ... as MILLER: Because BOYCE: and, in uh, my arrived stuff got time that thing feel to eat work, Ringoes, go to the Post Office to get ready went to together to o’clock, you tell me how to stop hospital 11 can up around to I wanted conclusion, what come or to this fella was ... see how this was, activity you were involved leave, how time What did BOYCE: getting Rin- getting, into prior to in you ar- did you, what time long were as, your to mind goes that would come Approximate- the Post Office? rive at know, think making you that ly? Ringoes in 11 o’clock? at arrived 11 o’clock. say I’d around Well, I home because you in the long Okay, how were BOYCE: 12, because, 11:30, to quarter around Office, Frank? Post uh, to uh, figured, I it had be some- so is all. A minutes few in 11 o’clockthat was around wheres did What A few minutes. BOYCE: thing I only Ringoes, that’s about outside, Frаnk? you walked do when can think of. my in car. MILLER: Got now, before, when Alright, BOYCE: And went where? BOYCE: element, time confronted Home. at Ringoes in you were you said that it indicated Okay, Frank. You o’clock, around 12 you got home minutes 20 approximately takes quarter to 12. now, 11:30 or you say home. drive Now, you question, going to ask yeah. Approximately, your long take drive how does it

hicle, dust that is red visible to ... eye naked Therefore, you have ar- would MILLER: Yeah. 11:15, 11:20 home the area of rived 4, 5, A.M., on but indicated to me when ... someone it. looks at 7, 8, already that maybe 9 occasions got clay It’s red dirt and around quarter home between you arrived covers wheel ... Now, I’m ... am o’clock. Uh, huh. right? now, you right tires. I’ll bet Yeah. there not another vehicle now, problem. Okay, this is a County physi- Hunterdon that fits the MILLER: I realize this ... we, description Trooper cal very serious This creates a your Scott saw vehicle in when problem. up it tonight. we there I’ll bet saw know, Times, uh, you I uh I, up I can call a thousand now people right and there will not be Oh, well, it’s not so description another vehicle that fits the times, is, time knowing what it much right? Am I vehicle. long takes do know how be, no, MILLER: There shouldn’t not with B, you’ve point point from A right side of it dented like that. already indicated ... point. That’s second You’re Yeah, approximately. now, right? with me Approximately 20 minutes. MILLER: Yeah. Right.

MILLER: Okay. BOYCE: Your vehicle was involved 11:15, So that’s 11:20 BOYCE: accident, in an was involved in two Right. MILLER: accidents. your 12 o’clock comes mind BOYCE: MILLER: Two accidents. minute, I see from anywhere a 40 was BOYCE: There blood found period half hour to a 40 minute ... on the left a we, portion vehicle, your is what I front interior of you, are where are where tonight, fresh say? blood. should Yeah. MILLER: MILLER: Fresh blood? I, know, this, just, you And BOYCE: Yes, very, very sir. This is seri- BOYCE: this, my big question I have a mark ous. right mind now. I realize this. MILLER: Right. MILLER: point Now, you 3. a BOYCE: That’s live my point, Do see Frank? BOYCE: from miles the scene where this few Yes, sir.

MILLER: girl young, innocent was found. car, point That’s Your BOYCE: one. Uh, huh. MILLER: right now indicate that 11 and BOYCE: You between morning,

12 11 yesterday between hour, minutes, you 60 went one Yeah. MILLER: from, according your statement ... right ... is side? BOYCE: dented on the Right. MILLER: Right. Ringoes Post Office BOYCE: ... is, should, may Your trunk house, trip a addmitted to me your down, sprang use the words should maybe takes 20 minutes. yourself that a metal type this is some because minutes, right. MILLER: About spring ... of, wear, have a lot BOYCE: You Right, yeah. trousers. dark blue your securing ... the trunk Right. dust ve- vehicle. There red on yours are there like in the County right now? light a blue BOYCE: You have lot many, MILLER: There shouldn’t be too if shirts. any ... Right. any If ... know, I BOYCE: I have a lot of them damage MILLER: Because of the on the my custody your now. We went righthand side. night and found stains house last blood Now, your what would conclusion stoop. on the front circumstances, if be under those some- stoop? MILLER: On the front one told that? Yes, sir. uh, probably, I’d havе the same Well, get how did it there? you got. conclusion BOYCE: I don’t know Frank. Let me ask Which is what? how did it there? guy I’m the that did this. MILLER: That MILLER: I have no idea. BOYCE: That did what? sample obtained a We MILLER: Committed this crime. blood. Right. BOYCE: What crime? Well, you girl said before the sample Obtained from the ve- dead, killed, girl. killed this hicle. girl? BOYCE: Who killed this Uh, huh. guy driving MILLER: The this car. witness, Frank, BOYCE: We have now point this is 4. We have a witness who guy driving I think this car car, who, no, I’m, your wait, me, identified forgot something let ... car, sorry, say physical description let I shouldn’t your ... We ... who identified a vehicle fits the MILLER: Un huh. description car, girl’s at this BOYCE: ... of this individual from anoth-

home, speaking her, telling her physical description er witness. The being about a cow loose. Someone there who was who wanted MILLER: Yeah. her, help they didn’t want to hurt BOYCE: ... Fits and the clothes girl, they this didn’t this want to hurt Frank, wearing. I were don’t think Frank, girl, they help wanted to her. you’re you’re a I criminal. don’t think see, this, that,

You I know I know ... a criminal. I don’t think have a MILLER: Yeah. fact, criminal mind. As a matter of I mind, know don’t have a criminal I appreciate BOYCE: ... because can talking because we’ve been now for a because I have would done the same together, few hours we? haven’t thing. If there was to be Right. MILLER: rectified, somebody prob- or if had a lem, Right? I BOYCE: thing. would have done the same I help would have wanted to her. The MILLER: Yeah. property.

vehicle that her came onto BOYCE: You don’t have a criminal mind. Right. MILLER: MILLER: No. But, I BOYCE: I don’t. like description your

BOYCE: ... fits the know before, problems. have noted we all vehicle. Right. MILLER: MILLER: It does. right? Am I BOYCE: Now,

BOYCE: Yes. that’s the fourth Yeah, you said this over there at MILLER: point. say descrip- And when I fits the plant. tion, mean, Frank, Iwhat ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍is it fits the you agree me? BOYCE: And with ‘t,’ description to a and as we talked before, Yes, many about how other vehicles MILLER: sir.

BOYCE: ... that we have now. Your not, problem, forget I’m let’s inci- this have. problems I have BOYCE: dent, okay ... Right. MILLER: MILLER: Yeah. Now, prob- you solve a how do BOYCE: forget BOYCE: ... incident, let’s this lem? let’s problem. talk what, about problem. on depends This is That MILLER: this is I’m with, Frank, what concerned problem how do we solve it? Your BOYCE: your problem. going to solve it? are we How Right. MILLER: This I MILLER: don’t know. help you solve Do want me

BOYCE: problem If BOYCE: I had a your prob- like it? lem, help would want me with Yeah. MILLER: my problem. want me to extend all the You BOYCE: Uh, MILLER: huh. you? help possibly give I can don’t Now, you BOYCE: know talking what I’m Right. about. you willing Are do the same to BOYCE: MILLER: Yeah. me? that, uh, And I and I think MILLER: Yeah. a people lot of other know. You know Now, I feel ... talking what I’m about. I don’t think MILLER: Yeah. you’re criminal, Frank. ever, whoever is re- ... who is No, you’re but trying to make ... sponsible for this act me one. Yeah. not, not, No I’m no I’m but Does not He’s not a criminal. want to talk to me so we can they I think a criminal mind. have thing worked out. This is Iwhat aproblem.' want, want, this is Iwhat Frank. Uh, huh. there, mean it’s all it’s all there. me? agree Do saying Yeah. Let me ask question. They problem. have a BOYCE: Sure. Right. good thing dead, problem, you say girl’s A Now problem right? is a can be rectified. BOYCE: She just ago. died a few minutes MILLER: Yeah. just got ... that’s what the call was you. I want mean I about. really help you, know want to Cause Scott said she Officer they say, helps those God who I hospital said well then let’s and themselves, help Frank. know, go right go, you over there. Right. MILLER: hospital ... BOYCE: She was together got on this. We’ve to BOYCE: And, ... MILLER: uh about, talking know what I’m You Doyle that Detective ... the call BOYCE: you? don’t got, that’s, that’s what that call was. Yeah, they’re trying if especially MILLER: Cause, I told him ... MILLER: know, that, say you you that like to you feel I feel Are do what my I’m identified and car’s identi- say, right now? fied, uh, got get together on we to I bad. pretty feel MILLER: this. you to talk to me about BOYCE: Do want Now, only that a few Yes we do. it? the items ... nothing ... I can tell Uh, There’s MILLER: MILLER: huh. rectify problem. Put- to their BOYCE: ... in, prison going isn’t ting them you feel? BOYCE: About how it, is it? solve talk, nothing I I there’s can MILLER: ... know, I MILLER: No sir. I inwas there mean, girl, I sorry mean I feel for this years. for three and a half uh, that, something you this is know right. the, BOYCE: That’s That’s that’s BOYCE: That what? going your problem not to solve is it? Well, shame, uh it’s a ... No, you get help no down there. say you? did she BOYCE: What to, only you you think learn is how pardon? Beg your know ... say you? What did she Well, Frank, say let’s sup- MILLER: Who? pose you person were the who needed girl? help. you BOYCE: This What would somebody want you? to do for gril. I to this If never talked now, I she was to walk here Help me. know, wouldn’t know that she was the BOYCE: In way? what that, uh, girl you’re talking about. any way see, MILLER: In they, they that you being But were identified as know, fit, you that it would me. talking there to her minutes before she What, you what do compels think probably thing hap- was ... that somebody something to do like this. pened you explain to her. How can you is, What do think it Frank? that? Well, it could be a number of can’t. things. Why? example. BOYCE: Give me an I, I, why, you MILLER: I don’t know but know, person that, MILLER: It could be a explain something can I how drinks, uh, know, lot, you just, anything don’t know about. know, you don’t they, know what what Frank, look, want, want they they did once drinking. been It help, don’t Frank? somebody could be with narcotics huh, Yes, I’m, yes, yet uh they’re, don’t know what going I’m something not to admit to know, they’re doing what they once that, that I wasn’t involved in. up shot pills or took some or whatever to, BOYCE: We don’t want all I want do, they I don’t I’m drug not a you to do is talk to that’s all. I’m addict and never intend to be. talking admitting any- about BOYCE: What else Frank? What other thing, I want to talk to me. type person would do like I want to tell me what think. tell this? want me how think this, think about this? Somebody prob- with a mental MILLER: What think about it? lem. Right. Somebody

BOYCE: Yeah. with a ... MILLER: I really problem think whoever did it MILLER: Mental help.

needs problem, BOYCE: ... serious mental in, BOYCE: And that’s what I think and I’m interested know what don’t, They they not, in, preventing that’s what know. I’m interested right? punishment, don’t need Like this in the future. said, they

you help. need Right. MILLER: Right. MILLER: Now, if you BOYCE: don’t think it’s better They punishment. dоn’t BOYCE: need that he or she has a someone knows They help, good help. medical need with problem mental to come forward I’ve, I’ve, look, right. say, MILLER: it I’ve done That’s and Well, you BOYCE: then did still feel this way something might that happen it this, responsible for these acts. I’m because, would their fault as far as helped, help I I couldn’t but want to be I’m something concerned if happen, did myself control of myself, I had no your fault, it’s their it’s fault ... find properly you’ll if I’m examined Right. MILLER: or right case. Is that out that’s the wrong? part BOYCE: ... because that was a parole ... that, Yeah, exam- they should be MILLER: know, and, uh, Right. a doc- you maybe MILLER: ined with wrong find out what’s tor could ... they up BOYCE: didn’t live to it. em. Right. MILLER: you ever been examined? BOYCE: Have agree You me? BOYCE: Yes. MILLER: Yeah, MILLER: that ... you problem? have a

BOYCE: And did So, therefore, BOYCE: if did commit Well, come, uh, act, made I actually MILLER: when an they’re the ones that in, uh, stipu- blame, September, parole eyes the uh are in my ... was, uh, psychia- I

lation that see a Right. MILLER: trist. individual. ... not as BOYCE: Alright ... BOYCE: seeking help. You were there You there, right, you went they didn’t went Taylor Dr. over here at MILLER: voluntarily, right? two, there Center, him, I Medical seen I and last time was maybe three times uh, was, it Right. It was all set MILLER: gave a test ... there he me through up ... Uh, huh.

BOYCE: up. It all set uh, it was a bunch of bull board, well, parole MILLER: ... my shit, English. big If wheel plain officer, parole I up. believe set it At way what way, turns one does Gene, was, uh, uh, time it that DiGen- I test. little wheel turn? So took that nie, I believe his name was. says, he I when says, alright, say He BOYCE: DiGianni. back, part do I because this come DiGianni. my parole. Frank, you’re very, very nervous. see. Now, I, don’t, know, you, you’re, uh, says, I’ll MILLER: And he call saying? understand what says let I want to Yeah, you’re say- know this, up out work this test first. He ing. date, this has the man never called Now, reason for there’s a uh ... there? isn’t you feel this? How do Yes. Well, wrong. I think it’s tell me Do want to about it? you, do did feel you, BOYCE: Would Being something involved in like finding that after not out the results is ... might do test that what, it, it, Is does does does it responsible for? you might not be visibly you physically? shake MILLER: No. does, because, well, Yes, it Offi- ain’t capa- you, can tell been not Did feel that were cer Scott

ble, ago right sat doing something be- even month maybe, of room ... get the same cause didn’t results of like, didn’t they Uh, .. huh. .because they? did girl really ... behind the loved, a minor her because she was No. Frank, listen to honest to

BOYCE: (inau- God, I’m, telling you, I’m Frank making state- forced her into father know, dible). going I it’s to bother ments, which, she didn’t lie on the Frank, you. going you. it’s to bother up I statements. tried to cover there, going go away, it’s not to It’s until I heard from her Officer Scott right you, in it’s there. It’s front yes, says, I did tell and she said she right wrong? I Frank. Am or So, him, says, she I had to tell him. MILLER: Yeah. my lawyer, you then when I talked to know, him, I I admitted to admitted to Frank, you You see it BOYCE: can can officer, my parole I said I’m not mak- it, you you feеl can feel it but are not I ing girl, a liar out of the cause love responsible. trying This is I’m to admitted, you much and so I her too you, you’ve got tell to come for- know, having if he asked me we were Don’t, don’t, ward and tell me. don’t sex ... don't, you up, fight let it eat don’t it. it, got rectify You’ve Frank. We’ve Alright. BOYCE: What ... I, got get together thing, on this uh, and, MILLER: ... I had no intentions really, you help, you I mean need need making a liar out of her. it, God, proper help my and know SIDE TWO know, name, you, God’s Testing Testing. 12 3. BOYCE: criminal, you know it. You are not a to me Frank. This BOYCE: Now listen not a criminal. are you, hurts me more than it hurts be- Yes, Alright. I was over there MILLER: . people. I love cause the cow and and I talked to her about you anymore MILLER: It can’t hurt than up my stopped I left in car and I left. it hurts me. where, know, where on the road Frank, Okay, listen I want BOYCE: and she followed me the cow had been in her car ... being I MILLER: mean even involved Right. this. like cow wasn’t down ... and the Frank, Okay, promise If I listen walking through and started there we to, know, do all I can with the stuff, could see the fields and psychiatrist everything, and we cow was. where the get proper help you, get for Uh, huh. proper help you, will talk Now, I don’t know ... to me about it? Now, please Frank I can’t talk to about some- .... thing I’m not ... Wait, wait a minute. Frank, Alright, alright, listen sorry, sorry. I’m I’m know, going I I honest. know what’s Okay, okay. help I on inside Frank. want to ahead, sorry. BOYCE: Go I’m right you, you between us now. guy I where this don’t know going you. I know what on inside from come ... Frank, you’ve got come forward and him, sorry, go Tell me about yourself. tell me that want to ahead. got to talk me it. This You’ve MILLER: But ... only way is the we’ll be able to work it him Frank ... Tell me about mean, know, listen, out. want he, alright, grabbed Alright, help you, my because are her ...

mind, you responsible. You are responsible, are not Frank. Right.

what’s the matter? got the cut on that’s how hand, car. cut my didn’t feel bad. tell

BOYCE: Now me where went. again incident, Tell me about happened. Alright, tell me what BOYCE: okay? happened. Let it come Tell me what Right. MILLER: out, Frank, let out. This is it come need, I’m, Frank, it’s BOYCE: Alright what Frank. tell me hap- what pened. me, and now listen. now, Alright he, you I, know Office, MILLER: I left the Post want get go ahold of him he cut Office,

tried to and me from the right? Post knife, with the and he’d hand Uh, huh. her, he ran. already cut and then Alright. Alright, then I stuck Alright. mailbox, letter the. the the out of thing thought, you first MILLER: So I mail, town I and left could, there and I know, help got I try her. her in up, gonna went was go up the back know, just, she the car and she way because it was a way shorter just got because, I fell over and scared I home. Then seen along this cow the you know, thought I she was dead. road and there was a farm there so I figured, know, it must be Alright. their So, there, cow. I went in I and started So, got I bridge, down I get out the car dogs and the just, you laid her off there and barked Iso blew the horn ... got I the hell out of there because was scared, because, Right. you know ... out, here, it come I’m

BOYCE: Let Frank. about, ... because I wasn’t I I’m your I’m here with now. on dog didn’t know whether this would side, side, your And, I’m on Frank. I’m bite or not. I blew the horn two brother, your or girl and I are brothers three times and then this come Frank. are I out. We brothers and want to

help my brother. BOYCE: Do girl remember what the on that wearing? hadn’t went down looked like? What she If I was I road wouldn’t even have been in- MILLER: She was wearing a piece two volved in it. suit, bathing like said. listen ... BOYCE: Go ahead. was a way It shorter home MILLER: I told her there a cow out from, from the Post Office. said, yeah probably there and she it’s lying Post Office noth- always one getting that’s out. And I ing. past cemetary I came out help, you got said well do need a up up that dirt road ... anybody help you get here to it in and Alright, let’s ... uh, I says, help, she don’t need no she says So, have, myself. I can it back I because I ... could out, there, up went went know, swung area, road out off at the Whitehall driveway, following she was me in swung I could off and went Corvair, So, her car. I think a or. I through way the back house. I, stop up road there where where Let’s, Frank, go listen. Let’s and, uh, I had seen cow the cow Office, okay? back to Post Did up pulled wasn’t there. She behind you go the Post Office? got out of the and I she car said MILLER: Yes. Well, you the cow was here. can see Okay had been the marks where the cow MILLER: There was one ... through the, walking we started BOYCE: Tell me ... uh, there, through field it’s be on there, don’t, And, say, I ... one woman lefthand side. like don’t, begin guy even to describe. don’t know where this come from. couldn’t way

when I seen the she was cut I her, wanted and then she when happened. Tell me got in- fell over scared to even be She, I Well, scream. I heard her this, being like on volved along the or less walking more parole and ... trees, there, whatever hedgerow I heard her scream call it. to want this, Frank, I may realize it have guy and I seen a around I turned and been an possible, accident. Isn’t that my height, there, maybe say he was I’d possible? Frank? Isn’t that smaller, taller, a little maybe a little Sure, possible. it’s when, know, up I ran when I don’t and me, how I whipped on that’s there Well, trying I’m to this is what this, got and ... out, may some- bring Frank. It be Frank, guy, do this Listen that, can’t thing did that where he you know him? Do This, know I can for. held accountable be lives? tell help you I once help you, can No, where he lives. I don’t know I’m know what me the truth. You help you, I to 171-173) talking about. want (inaudible hon- you. Frank: I like You’ve been you? girl this didn’t You killed been sincere and est with me. You’ve No, I didn’t. way you. same I’ve been the Honest, got come It’s to Frank? relationship we this is the kind of Now It’s hard leave it in. You can’t out. have, help you I unless but can’t is, that, it how hard you, I realize I’ll complete truth. listen tell me the is, I reаlize but difficult it how understand, I Frank. You you. to any- help yourself before got to you’ve that, I understand. I to believe have And we’re help you. body else can I you feel. under- understand how you get see to it that going to you in- much it must hurt stand how job, Frank. help. This is our proper I you feel because side. I know how to This is what want job. This is our may day some feel it too. Because do. Frank, but in the same situation be sending down there. By me back Tell me got help yourself. you’ve to now, don’t talk a second Wait me the happened, tell exactly what First going down there. back truth, Frank, please. come to do is let it all thing we have worse, fight it because it’s Don’t out. trying I’m to tell the truth. hurting Frank, me be- it’s worse. It’s help you. me It could have Let wanting it to it. feel cause feel You, got to you’ve been an accident. hurting Frank. out, it’s but come truth, Frank. You know tell me the brother, I mean we’re my You’re talking I can’t I’m about. what this, on all men All men on brothers. truth. Now know you without the brothers, this earth are the face of that’s, that’s, all that that’s and I know Frank, completely you got to be but counts, I know Frank. You know and me. honest with counts, what it’s all that’s that’s what be, you don’t to but trying I’m it from each can’t hide about. We believe me. want to know, but we both other because you, but to believe I want help your- willing to got to be you’ve truth, Frank, you to tell me I want you’re a I don’t think self. You talking about I’m you know what and like problem this You have criminal. talking about. you’re I know what before, right? talked about we I can’t me the truth. got to tell You’ve now, Yeah, say this you, you the truth. help you without everything thing goes to court Sure, telling you the truth. I’m you ... in the car because blood that’s her will understand. This is me, Frank, understand, please have to No. listen to Frank. If the truth is out to me. The issue now is what he will listen understand. That’s important not, is truth. most happened. thing, issue now got happened, what has Truth is the issue now. You’ve Frank. The fact this, truthful, prevails and the truth were believe came for- end, said, ward and Frank. You have to believe look I prob- have a lem. I saying I’m didn’t that and sincere when mean to do Iwhat did. I aproblem, you. got You’ve truthful with impor- what’s tant, Frank. yourself. very This is important, I I, got, got closer Yeah, truth, end, you say in Frank, got I you to make believe this right? why That’s I done three and a and I’m and I’m sincere when I you tell years for half ... got this. You to exactly tell me what Wait, BOYCE: whoa ... happened, Frank. That’s very impor- MILLER: ... for a crime that I never tant. I you inside, know how feel committed because of one stinkin de- Frank, eating you it’s up, am I right? framing tective me ... eating you up, It’s got You’ve Frank. Frank, Frank. BOYCE: to come got forward. You’ve to do it by MILLER: ... the name Rocco. yourself, for your for family, Frank, you’re talking to me BOYCE: now. father, this important is what’s Frank. have, relationship, We we have a don’t Just tell me. You didn’t meаn to kill you, we? Have I been sincere with you? her did Frank? thought MILLER: I she was dead or I’d Yeah, you MILLER: ... dropped have never her off like that. I BOYCE: ... Have been honest? Frank, me, Why, BOYCE: Frank? look at MILLER: ... Yes. okay? your problem I’m lookin at your problem, BOYCE: Have defined this, picture okay? now. Just I’m loo- willing help Frank? Have been to your problem, okay? kin at You fol- you? willing help I stated I’m Have low me? Iall can? MILLER: Uhm. MILLER: Yes. this, please BOYCE: What made do BOYCE: Do I mean it? tell me. Please tell me now. What MILLER: Yes. made do this? BOYCE: anybody Whenever talk to I talk I don’t know. way, the same because have a very, very me, problem, how, serious Alright, explain we ex- BOYCE: prevent anything actly want to in the happened future. how it and then we’ll see, important, maybe why This is what’s can find out we happened past. right happened, alright? It’s Is that fair? Just now, now, Frank, happened living we’re tell me how it and then we’ll we want why happened. it could have got You’ve talk about now. lot more, important This is to me. years a lot more what’s to live. No, don’t even know. I don’t. Well, happened, Yes, just tell me what BOYCE: BOYCE: do. Please, I tell me the truth this time. No, I don’t. help you can’t without the truth. say you you’ve Don’t don’t. Now went, got to tell me. MILLER: Like I said I I went there out because the cow was this, MILLER: Not after all because going my to kill I know that and ... father. Listen, Wait, wait, alright, a min- Frank. There wait is where

you, me out the drive- the truth comes out. Your father ute. She followed fighting you?

BOYCE: She wasn’t MILLER: No. on the up there stopped way. We think, Why and we do wasn’t around where were road. The cow got my car. We when cut her in the talkin. She throat? were at, on the might be down figured the cow Where were where were road, further. or down other at that moment? happen. it to You want by bridge. MILLER: Down Yes. bridge? BOYCE: Down got down Okay. When MILLER: Yes. there, Frank, down when went you in the BOYCE: Were vehicle were there, inside something happened you. you outside the vehicle? in, now I’m interested This is what to, me, yu’ve got you’ve got

please tell In car. Frank, we want proper help, You were the car? me, Frank. help you. Please tell MILLER: Yes. happened, I don’t know what now, car, you were in the Okay, really don’t. right? Alright, tell tell me how Uh, huh. time, Frank. happened, the truth get Did she in the car voluntar- BOYCE: ya I tell that. can’t even MILLER: ily? Well, me, tell me tell BOYCE: MILLER: Yes. (inaudible) completely have to be ... She did? BOYCE: way I am with truthful with me the MILLER: Yes. Frank, honest you. important, It’s so you her to into the Did ask BOYCE: God, people truth. because believe car? me, mean, Frank, hurting I this is God MILLER: Yes. just you I to come out listen. want her, you say did Frank? What BOYCE: help you, I that’s so can and tell said, go on down Listen, why I don’t we way. MILLER: right all. it’s see if the cow’s down the road and God, I, I don’t know MILLER: swear there. happened down there. what you? got in the car with And she BOYCE: Why? Why you did do it? BOYCE: MILLER: Yes. I don’t even know that. MILLER: get in the car with did she BOYCE: Where you, you did cut What did what BOYCE: you? use, you girl What did with? Frank? road. Up on the main MILLER: penknife A MILLER: parked her car? Where she BOYCE: penknife? Your BOYCE: MILLER: Yes. Yes,

MILLER: sir. you drove down Alright. Then BOYCE: penknife? bridge. BOYCE: Which you one have. Right. MILLER: The MILLER: happened in The one I have? Okay, BOYCE: now. What BOYCE: you have did the car? Where MILLER: Yes. knife? her, you Frank? Where did cut BOYCE: my pocket. MILLER: In In the throat. MILLER: your pocket? In BOYCE: In the throat? BOYCE: MILLER: Yes. Uh, huh. MILLER: And, take it out? you did when BOYCE: Now, you cut her in right before BOYCE: everything’s a cut, did, From there MILLER: throat, what, you why did blank. fighting you off? was she Well ... BOYCE: No. MILLER: Try BOYCE: now, and remember it’s very important. you I’m sure can under- what, didn’t, you as far as MILLER: that, right? stand really ... MILLER: Yeah. Alright, well where did cut Try her with the knife? and remember now. You bridge her over the threw ... In the car. MILLER: fight you anyway. Yeah. BOYCE: Did she No. Now, go did you down and any part of her BOYCE: Did cut other again? at her look body, Frank? really don’t know. No, I, no, that I not not Okay. Did did know of. her, sexual relations with Frank? anyway, bite her in BOYCE: Did MILLER: Not that of. know Frank? Are sure now? Think hard. No, that I know of. now, Think hard while were in the Not know of? car? MILLER: No. I don’t think so. car, BOYCE: Did she bleed a lot in the she, Alright. After after Frank? bridge? her out threw over the Some, yes. MILLER: Yeah. happened BOYCE: What to the blood that Is that where had the sexual car, clean Frank? Did with her? relations car, Did car Frank? clean the I don’t think I did. out was in after the blood the vehicle? no, I, just, really, any There Did of her wasn’t remove cloth-

you on wiped ing, what little bit was Frank? the seat. so, I don’t no. I MILLER: believe don’t her Alright. you really BOYCE: After cut know. throat, now, you what did do then? about, Alright. BOYCE: Now think did that, happened, After what after try drag body anywhere? you her then, you did do Frank? I don’t think MILLER: so. know, I, everything just, I MILLER: don’t you drag body up Did BOYCE: to- blank, everything’s really. anywhere? wards water Well, try and now.

BOYCE: remember so, I, I say MILLER: don’t think no. I I What, you did out of the vehicle? know, I don’t Yeah, I, got I guess. got, I I MILLER: now, Where, again you’re in BOYCE: once out of the car I took her out of the right? with her the car car ... Uh, huh. MILLER: Alright, you BOYCE: then what did do? Now, you pull did knife out BOYCE: bridge. her over the MILLER: Carried her, right away? you say to What did bridge? over BOYCE: Threw her you pulled before knife out? ask you anything? Did her MILLER: Yes. I MILLER: don’t know if did or not. Did, then, you after her

BOYCE: threw do, knife, you you pocket then bridge, over the what did And said the BOYCE: pocketknife you referring Frank? were now, you used. do, I MILLER: I didn’t don’t know. you The one have. MILLER: drag, drag her you you

BOYCE: Did did gave me at PFD any over The one that further after threw her BOYCE: bridge? Plastics? so, Yeah. MILLER: MILLER: I don’t no. think anyway? you bite her Did

BOYCE: did cut I don’t think ... And whereabouts MILLER: BOYCE: her? truth, Frank. Hon- Tell me the BOYCE: In the throat. with me so honest est? You’ve been any rea- In the throat? Is there BOYCE: truthful, far, you’ve you’ve been so throat, in the why you cut her son honest, sincere. you’ve been been Frank? threw, Now, you, how did after No, not I know of. uh, car, you, side which car did which Did did caress her BOYCE: her out of? did draft of the car anyway? breasts in MILLER: The driver’s side. MILLER: No. BOYCE: Driver’s side? girl? BOYCE: Was she attractive MILLER: Yeah. Um, sо, yes. say I’d that, your About what time was see. Did clean car

Frank? anyway? I'm not sure. MILLER: Yeah. About what time? Where, your where did clean Well, I was at the Post Office car, Frank? o’clock, around, figure so it had to hose at home. used the be after that. At home? happened BOYCE: It sometime after Yeah, driveway. in the about, long? about how enter house BOYCE: And did after, say maybe MILLER: I’d five ten door, through the front Frank? after, That’s like this. Through breezeway. go about all the time it would take to Post to there. from the Office Through breezeway? BOYCE: And what road were on when MILLER: Yeah. this, throat when cut her rags? Where are the What did vehicle, what road were on? you use to clean the car out with? exactly. the road don’t know just MILLER: I used the hose. road, Was it a dirt Frank? The hose? MILLER: Yes. MILLER: Yeah. BOYCE: It was a dirt road? BOYCE: You washed it out? MILLER: Yes. MILLER: Yes. you anybody Did see at the house BOYCE: you was the vehicle when BOYCE: Where you there? when were out, washed Frank? her. Just driveway. MILLER: In the you any of her brothers? BOYCE: Did see driveway? you In Did use BOYCE: MILLER: No. any rag the inside of the type of on you anyone BOYCE: Did see else? car? out but her. MILLER: No. No one came MILLER: Just a ... no. you any portion Did

BOYCE: cut other sure, you Are Frank? BOYCE: Just, body, just think her Frank? paper I had a MILLER: There a ... time, hard, now, your ah. You take bag bag, paper a brown and the ... know, that, you I realize of the water off of the just wiped some think, just your you time and did take and stuff. seat you any portion body? cut of her Did bag paper Where is the brown BOYCE: cut her breasts? now, you do with it? Frank? What did MILLER: No. away. MILLER: I threw it sure, Are Frank? BOYCE: it, Frank? did throw BOYCE: Where Positive. ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍MILLER: Yeah. Driving along my the road on help you. In BOYCE: order to Flemington. way up to Uh, huh. Where, on do remember you willing BOYCE: Would to do that? were, road or how far which Uh, huh. away from the house when were Now, is there anything I can threw it out the window? you now? You want coffee? No, I don’t. MILLER: No. idea, any You don’t have Frank? just You want to sit here for MILLER: No. awhile? Now, you actually did throw her MILLER: Yes. the, uh, the fence over then the rail? The time now is 2:45 A.M. Statement

MILLER: Yes. concluded at this time. Statement and in- BOYCE: You did? terrogation concluded at this time. MILLER: Yes. go, BOYCE: Did after threw her fence, you go

over the did and look at again

her to see if she was dead? did,

MILLER: I don’t believe I no. anyone there

BOYCE: Was occurred, when this or were

you alone? You indicated before that alone, were were alone with happened? when

her The UNITED STATES America MILLER: Yeah. you driving your see. Were v. car, Frank? BJERKE, Wayne Mitchell also as known MILLER: Yeah. Brown, Bjerke”, “Mitch Constance L. kind BOYCE: What of a car do drive? Scott, Margaret and Martha Zoller. Mercury. MILLER: a white Appeal of UNITED STATES year Mercury? BOYCE: What is that of America. ’69. any damage, '69? Is there No. 85-3653. any damage your there vehicle? Appeals, United States Court MILLER: Yes. Third Circuit. damage? BOYCE: Where is the Righthand Argued side. June 1986. Is trunk tied down? July Decided 1986. MILLER: Yes. Rehearing Rehearing In Banc Alright. I’ve indicated before Aug. Denied 1986. willing would be to sit down with me and the Assistant Prosecutor him, said,

and indicate to like problem. have a uh, huh. you willing to sit Would down

with us take while we a statement you?

from

MILLER: Yes. incorporated, you

BOYCE: So it can be

follow me?

Case Details

Case Name: Frank M. Miller, Jr. v. Peter J. Fenton, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General, State of New Jersey

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 26, 1986

Citation: 796 F.2d 598

Docket Number: 83-5530

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.