We often hear that a conviction was thrown out based on a technicality. In this case, the technicality is not just Miranda, but the actual right to an attorney. This is not a technicality, this is a constitutional right.
Last week, the LA Times covered a federal appeals court’s unanimous overturning of a first degree murder conviction in which the man was sentenced to life without parole for killing his estranged wife and an off-duty Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy.
Reuben Lujan was convicted for the 1998 killing of his estranged wife, 26, and her friend, a deputy sheriff, by smashing their heads with a concrete block. He had previously been arrested for stalking and threatening the woman who had left him four months prior, and the deputy was a neighbor that the man believed she was dating.
Writes the Times, “A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a lower court decision, agreed that detectives failed to administer a complete Miranda warning before questioning Lujan. Specifically, they did not tell Lujan that he had a right to an attorney before and during the interrogation and did not end the questioning once he asked for a lawyer, the court said.”
The Times notes, “Lujan also confessed to the killings during his trial, but that confession cannot be used against him because he only testified to explain his earlier admissions, the 9th Circuit said.”
“The problem here is that the words used by law enforcement did not reasonably convey to [Lujan] that he had the right to speak with an attorney present at all times – before and during his custodial interrogations,” wrote Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, a Southern California district judge assigned to the panel. “Speaking with an attorney present was not an option” detectives gave Lujan, the Times reported.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Kamala Harris declined to state whether the office would appeal the ruling. The Times reports, “If Tuesday’s ruling stands, Lujan would either have to be retried or a Superior Court judge might be asked to modify the conviction and sentence to a lesser crime, such as second-degree murder.”
Some of the comments in the LA Times seemed to miss the critical mark. One noted, “This whole Miranda Rights thing is getting out of hand. This country is losing common sense by the second. First we give ‘rights’ to an international terrorist who killed our people overseas, while punishing our own troops for a well deserved punch in the stomach to the terrorist. And now we are letting a murderer go, simply because his ‘rights’ weren’t read to him, when he has the choice to get his own lawyer ANYWAY. “
Another commenter said, “Whether there was a technicality with his Miranda rights or not, the man was read his Miranda rights and he understood them. I believe this is B.S. After reading the conversation between the detective and him I believe he was properly briefed on his legal options. All I can say is if there’s a family member of either victim that’s crazy enough and has a nothing to lose type of mentality, this guy better go into hiding.”
To me these comments really show the degree of ignorance in the general community about not only constitutional issues, but how the appeals process works. The man is not going to be free unless he is acquitted of his crime by a court of law. As the article explained, he will either be retried or will take a lesser plea.
But there is a more fundamental problem at work here, as well.
We assume this man is guilty. But let’s look at what actually happened. Mr. Lujan was interviewed three times on the morning of the arrest. During the first interview he was told he had the right to remain silent and have an attorney appointed.
But in the third interview, he asked for an attorney.
“You feel you need one?” a detective asked.
“Yes, I do,” Mr. Lujan said.
“OK,” the detective replied. “All right. If that’s what you want to do, we’ll do that.”
“Can I get one in here today?” Mr. Lujan asked.
“I really doubt it,” the detective said. “I mean, I’m going to be honest with you. It’s Sunday evening. When you go to court in a couple of days there will be one appointed for you. That’s the way the system is set up …
“If you want to call and hire an attorney, that’s fine. If you want to make a statement without an attorney, that’s up to you. I doubt that if you hire an attorney they’ll let you make a statement; they usually don’t. That’s the way it goes. So, that’s your prerogative; that’s your choice. Now, if you do want to talk to me without an attorney, that’s your choice. You can just tell the jailer, ‘Hey, I’d like to talk to the detectives without an attorney present.’ OK? That’s your choice.”
Based on this point, Mr. Lujan is requesting an attorney. The fact that they may not have been able to get an attorney into the police station is immaterial. Mr. Lujan had an absolute right to an attorney and was clearly denied one.
But the story actually gets worse than this. An attorney, according to the LA Times, “was at the station trying to speak to him at the time.” This is according to his appellate attorney, Tracy Dressner.
Making matters worse, “She said there was no forensic evidence or eyewitness tying him to the killings. The weapon, a concrete block, was a lid to a water main near the crime scene.”
The Times writes, “A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge refused to suppress the confession. A state appeals court said the confession to the detectives should not have been admitted, but upheld the conviction on the grounds that Lujan confirmed his guilt when he testified at the trial. The 9th Circuit said that ruling conflicted with settled law.”
However, “Testimony induced by an erroneous admission of an out-of-court confession cannot be used in a subsequent prosecution or to support the initial conviction, wrote Bencivengo, an Obama appointee, who was joined by 9th Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and Jay S. Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee.”
This is a disturbing case. Perhaps the conviction was correct, based on Mr. Lujan’s testimony in trial, but Mr. Lujan was never offered an opportunity to have a fair defense based on the coerced confession.
We wonder why there are so many false confessions – this is an example of how one might occur. The verdict needs to be overturned to protect future potentially innocent people from being coerced into a confession – accurate or false.
The fact that police this time might have gotten it right does not exonerate their actions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“And now we are letting a murderer go, simply because his “rights” weren’t read to him, when he has the choice to get his own lawyer ANYWAY.”
“After reading the conversation between the detective and him I believe he was properly briefed on his legal options.”
It’s amusing when an inexperienced person gives their opinion about the law or medicine or anything that is very complicated. I seriously doubt these posters were lawyers, and I bet they have never been arrested for anything. I doubt they have even read our constitution.
The detectives quote in the article above does not appear coercive–did the coercion come about later in the discussion/interrogation?
Neither does the detective appear to be denying him a lawyer; though he is dancing about the issue a bit; letting him know he had the right to hire a lawyer but naturally hoping he will agree to give a statement without a lawyer present (did the detective at any point state that if he could not afford to hire a lawyer; the court would appoint one for him?)
Jimmysdaughter–I agree with your comment in the sense that lawyers and other experts in law can give a more ‘considered’ opinion. But the minutiae of the law can often lead to conclusions and rulings that are clearly absurd or socially harmful–a recent example is the “Citizens United” case; where the supremes have enabled continued and further buyouts and purchases of influence by big money.
So I think it is legitimate to let non-experts to put in their 2-cents as well (though I agree non-experts can also give opinions that are absurd as any of those considered opinions of the experts).
Once the request is made for the attorney, the detective is required under law to cease the interview until an attorney is found.
[quote]Once the request is made for the attorney, the detective is required under law to cease the interview until an attorney is found.[/quote]
[quote]The detectives quote in the article above does not appear coercive–did the coercion come about later in the discussion/interrogation? [/quote]
I think part of the issue here may be the nature of coercion. The other question is how long had Mr. Lujan been in custody at the time this conversation was occurring and in what circumstances ? Being detained in uncomfortable circumstances is well known to wear people down and make them more amenable to giving into what their captors want them to say and do. Coercion is not limited to the words that are spoken.
The other point I noted was that the statement was made that Mr. Lujan was enquiring whether he could get a lawyer that same day at the same time that a lawyer was requesting access to Mr. Lujan. If this is true, then the police officer was lying to him in order to question him without the presence of a lawyer which would seem to be a violation of his rights.
From THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. Case: 10-55637 10/29/2013 ID: 8840658
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BACKGROUND
Monica Lujan, Petitioner’s estranged wife, and Gilbert Madrigal, an off-duty deputy sheriff, were murdered in the early hours of August 16, 1998. Petitioner was arrested later that morning. Petitioner and Monica had separated four months earlier and on July 13, 1998, Monica told Petitioner she wanted a divorce. Petitioner habitually stalked and threatened Monica after their separation. He told her if she “wanted to play,” she “would not win.” He told her that their
marriage would not be over until he said it was, and if he could not have her, “we would have to wait and see.” When Monica threatened to get a restraining order, Petitioner responded, “Go ahead. That is, if you’re still alive.” Monica reported to the police that Petitioner had
simulated shooting her – pantomiming a gun with his fingers and saying, “This is going to be you.” She also reported that he had told her, “I’ll kill you if you try to leave me.” As a result of Monica’s reports and Petitioner’s repeated unannounced visits to her residence, Petitioner was arrested for making terrorist threats and stalking. One week before the killings, at approximately two o’clock in the morning,
Petitioner again returned to Monica’s residence and chased her inside. Late on August 15, 1998, Petitioner drove by Monica’s residence and saw her and Mr. Madrigal become “intimate” and enter his nearby house. Petitioner knew Mr. Madrigal was a police officer and had repeatedly questioned his (Petitioner’s) son to determine if Monica was dating Mr. Madrigal or other men. While Monica and Mr. Madrigal were inside, Petitioner hid behind a truck in the driveway. When he heard them exit, he picked up a concrete block weighing fifteen pounds. He struck Mr. Madrigal with the block and then struck Monica repeatedly. Monica died at the scene; Mr. Madrigal died after spending a week in a coma.
Petitioner later tossed the concrete block into the bushes and returned to his mother’s home where he was residing. When Monica’s father called the house to say Petitioner hurt Monica and “she did not make it,” Petitioner told his mother to “go see how she is.” Around the same time, Petitioner told his brother he had gotten into a fight with Monica and hurt her.
Lujan also confessed to the 2 murders during his trial testimony.
Anybody think Lujan is innocent?
“Being detained in uncomfortable circumstances is well known to wear people down and make them more amenable to giving into what their captors want them to say and do. Coercion is not limited to the words that are spoken.”
In a different situation I was interviewed by the Dixon police as a possible character witness. The police told me a bold faced lie about my friend, which I can prove. The police often do not play by their own rules. I choose not to pursue action against the officer because my own dad was a cop; I still have respect for that profession. Over the years, that respect is evaporating. But it has not disappeared completely.