South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

In State v. Parker, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the murder and armed robbery conviction of a 16 year old defendant, holding that his statement was not involuntary. The Court reviews the factors involved in the determination:

In determining whether a confession was given “voluntarily,” this Court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s giving the confession. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 854 (1973). As the United States Supreme Court has instructed, the totality of the circumstances includes “the youth of the accused, his lack of education or his low intelligence, the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights, the length of detention, the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning, and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, no one factor is determinative, but each case requires careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances. Id.

In this case, the defendant was 16 years old, he had finished the sixth grade, and was of below average intelligence. There was no evidence that he was advised of his Miranda rights other than the testimony at trial of the police (there was no written Miranda form, even though one officer testified it was customary for them to use the written form, and there were no Miranda warnings given on the portion of the interview that was recorded). He was interviewed for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours, and had not slept for at least a full day before the interview (he was running from the police in the woods, and when he was finally caught he was taken to the hospital to be checked for frostbite and hypothermia). During the chase, police shot at him numerous times.

I suppose one thing that this case illustrates is, under the current law regarding confessions, the need to win the suppression argument at the trial level. On appeal, the standard of review is "abuse of discretion," and the appellate court will not overrule the trial judge's findings of facts. For example in this case, the trial judge specifically found that the testimony of the police officers that they gave Miranda warnings was credible and the defendant's testimony that he was not given warnings was not credible.

As in most types of suppression hearings, what this means is that if the officer has no problem lying on the stand, and many don't, there is no need to actually give Miranda warnings. They just have to say they did at trial - any judge is going to find the police officer credible and the defendant not credible. The only way to prevent cops from circumventing the rule and then lying in court is to require proof that Miranda was given, beyond the testimony of the officer. Require that confessions be recorded, and that Miranda be given on the recording, or require that a written form be used.

The officer in Parker also admittedly used the Reid technique during the interview. Telling the juvenile that what they did is ok, that it is understandable and he knows the juvenile didn't mean to do it, is one of the techniques used by police, in conjunction with other types of lies that are sanctioned by the courts, that will result in confessions - whether true or false. The Reid technique was discussed at length in Miranda v. Arizona, as one of the evils that they were trying to avoid by requiring Miranda warnings.

To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, the manuals instruct the police to display an air of confidence in the suspect's guilt and, from outward appearance, to maintain only an interest in confirming certain details. The guilt of the subject is to be posited as a fact. The interrogator should direct his comments toward the reasons why the subject committed the act, rather than court failure by asking the subject whether he did it. Like other men, perhaps the subject has had a bad family life, had an unhappy childhood, had too much to drink, had an unrequited desire for women. The officers are instructed to minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, [Footnote 12] to cast blame on the victim or on society. [Footnote 13] These tactics are designed to put the subject in a psychological state where his story is but an elaboration of what the police purport to know already -- that he is guilty. Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and discouraged . . .

From these representative samples of interrogation techniques, the setting prescribed by the manuals and observed in practice becomes clear. In essence, it is this: to be alone with the subject is essential to prevent distraction and to deprive him of any outside support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. He merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to have him describe. Patience and persistence, at times relentless questioning, are employed. To obtain a confession, the interrogator must "patiently maneuver himself or his quarry into a position from which the desired objective may be attained." [Footnote 23] When normal procedures fail to produce the needed result, the police may resort to deceptive stratagems such as giving false legal advice. It is important to keep the subject off balance, for example, by trading on his insecurity about himself or his surroundings. The police then persuade, trick, or cajole him out of exercising his constitutional rights.

Even without employing brutality . . . the very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals.