People vs. Cortez

People v. Cortez was remanded to the Court of Appeals by the Michigan Supreme Court. The case was released on March 12, 2013. The purpose of the remand was to reconsider the defendant’s Miranda challenge in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Howes v. Fields.

The defendant appealed as of right convictions of two counts of a prisoner in possession of a weapon (MCL 800.283(4)). The trial court sentenced him as a second offense habitual offender as well. Previously, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions which were later vacated in part.

Regarding the incident in question, the defendant was a prisoner at Carson City Correctional Facility. The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) found two homemade shanks in the defendant’s cell during a search of several inmates’ cells related to suspected gang activity.

So the defendant moved before trial to suppress a recorded statement from an interview where he admitted to having the weapons. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by ruling the MDOC officer who questioned the defendant was not required to provide Miranda warnings and by admitting the defendant’s confession at trial.

Not enough to constitute custody for Miranda purposes

In Fields, the Supreme Court articulated that an inmate’s imprisonment on its own is not enough to constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Restraint on freedom of movement is merely the first step in the custody analysis. Next, the Court compared the relatively coercive environment of an interrogative interview as seen by a free person versus a prisoner. The Court reasoned that an inmate is not likely to experience shock during questioning like a recently-arrested person might. Secondly, a prisoner is not likely to talk to police under the premise that he or she will be allowed to go home if cooperation occurs. Once the questioning stops, the inmate remains in prison. Additionally, questioning a prisoner in private or having an armed escort are not necessarily coercive either. Special security precautions and escorts may be standard procedure in certain correctional facilities.

As for the subject matter—whether the questioning is about criminal activity from inside or outside the prison—the Court saw little distinction. Both may result in criminal liability and punishment, so neither has a great potential for coercion. In sum, the Court stated that the threat to a person’s Fifth Amendment rights that Miranda was designed to address is neither increased nor decreased “by the location of the conduct about which questions are asked.”

The Court said when a prisoner is questioned, the determination of custody should focus on all aspects of the interrogation. This includes the language used with the prisoner in requesting an interview—and how the interview itself is conducted. When an inmate is removed from the prison population for an interrogation and in the course experiences treatment that renders him or her in custody for practical purposes… “will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.” Fields was told at the beginning of the interview he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted. Moreover, he was not physically restrained, the door to the conference room was left open, and he was offered food and water. These factors outweighed the facts that Fields did not initiate or consent to the interview and that it lasted five to seven hours past his bedtime. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined he was not in custody for Miranda purposes.

In applying Fields to the present case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant also was not in custody for Miranda purposes. The defendant was removed from the prison population, handcuffed, and confined in an office. However, the interview only lasted for fifteen minutes. Moreover, the questioning was related to gang activity so it was safer to question the defendant alone. In addition, the officer in the case stated that inmates are reluctant to openly speak in front of other prisoners.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s convictions—finding no Fifth Amendment violation. Ultimately, the Fields case may prove to be more important for inmates in county jails. It is a common police tactic to attempt to question inmates in county jail about crimes being investigated other than those for which the inmate is in jail. This is routinely done even when the inmate has an attorney on the first case. At a minimum, Fields offers a methodology of assessing the Miranda requirements in that environment.

If you need assistance evaluating a criminal appeal, the experienced trial and appellate lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC, are able to help you evaluate your state and federal appellate remedies.