Opinion
S276624
12-21-2022
PEOPLE v. RIVERA (MIGUEL)
B300948 Second Appellate District, Div. 4.
Petition for review denied
Concurring Statement
GROBAN, J.
While being interrogated by police, Miguel Rivera invoked his right to counsel. Nevertheless, the interrogating officers continued questioning him for another 19 minutes. During this time, Rivera invoked his right to remain silent several more times. One of the officers who interrogated Rivera testified at a subsequent suppression hearing that he knew any statements obtained after Rivera invoked his right to counsel would be suppressed pursuant to Miranda. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) The officer testified that he nonetheless continued questioning Rivera in an attempt to obtain information that could be used as part of a planned covert jail cell operation. (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292.) After Rivera invoked his right to counsel, the officers told him that they had videos for three murders. The officers also told him earlier that all three murders were committed with a nine-millimeter weapon. The next day, the officers placed an informant in a cell with Rivera. Rivera and the informant discussed, among other things, the very topics discussed the day before in the interrogation conducted in violation of Miranda.
Rivera told the informant that they had a video for one murder, but did not think they could identify him because his face was covered. Rivera also said that he did not know how law enforcement knew he committed the second murder, but believed it was because the same weapon was used for both crimes. This recorded discussion was introduced by the prosecution at Rivera's trial and Rivera was ultimately convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of first degree murder.
The protection afforded by Mirandais clear: “If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 474.) Here, the interrogation did not cease. To the contrary, law enforcement deliberately interrogated Rivera after he invoked his right to counsel. The officer knew that continued interrogation violated Miranda and that the statements would not be admissible at trial, but he kept questioning Rivera anyway. I therefore have serious doubts as to whether the procedure employed here is lawful. However, because the Court of Appeal found the error harmless, I do not vote to grant review. Perhaps a more complete record, developed on habeas corpus, will present a different picture.
I Concur:
LIU, J., JENKINS, J.