Friday, January 2, 2009
Page 1
C.A. Tosses Murder Conviction Over Incomplete Miranda Warning
By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer
The First District Court of Appeal has reversed a Contra Costa County man’s second degree murder conviction because police officers only read him three of the four required Miranda warnings before questioning him.
Granting Sylvester Antoine Bradford a new trial, Div. One ruled Monday that the trial court should have suppressed Bradford’s confession because detectives who quizzed him about his knowledge of Miranda warnings from prior arrests and television before the interview failed to advise that his statements could be used against him.
Bradford, who had a long criminal record, shot Dale Jones to death in Jones’s Richmond apartment in August 2004 during an argument over drugs, and confessed to police during an interview after he was arrested later that day.
However, a detective began the interview by asking Bradford if he knew “[w]hat happens when people get arrested on cop shows?” and proceeded to advise Bradford only of his rights to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and to have an attorney provided at no cost if he was indigent.
Self-Defense Argued
Bradford argued at trial that he shot Jones in self defense, but Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Richard E. Arnason denied Bradford’s request to suppress the confession and sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison after a jury convicted him of the murder and two related firearms offenses.
On appeal, Bradford contended that Arnason should have suppressed the confession over the detective’s failure to give all four Miranda warnings, and Justice Sandra L. Margulies, examining the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, agreed.
Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the confession was properly admitted because Bradford’s comments during the interrogation—including a reference to incriminating himself—showed he was aware his statements could be used later, she wrote:
“The only possible conclusion to be drawn from Miranda, repeated several times in the decision, is that a defendant’s statement is inadmissible unless all four warnings were given to the defendant prior to the interrogation, regardless of the defendant’s understanding of his or her rights….
“Here, it was not even hinted to defendant that his statements might later be used against him; the issue was not mentioned at all. Because the detectives failed to give defendant one of the four required Miranda warnings, his confession was inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.”
Error Not Harmless
Margulies then concluded that reversal of Bradford’s convictions was required because the court could not make a finding that admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Although it is beyond doubt that defendant was the killer, the evidence of his mental state at the time of the shooting is less clear-cut…,” she said.
Noting that witness testimony about the quarrel could have led the jury to conclude that Bradford shot Jones in “imperfect” self defense or in the “heat of passion,” supporting a conviction only of voluntary manslaughter, Margulies rejected the prosecution’s assertion that the confession would have been admitted in any event to impeach Bradford’s testimony.
“Whether defendant would have testified in the absence of the need to respond to his confession and, if so, whether the confession would have been admitted for purposes of impeachment requires us to engage in speculation about the parties’ tactical choices,” she wrote.
Forensic Analysis
The justice similarly swept aside the prosecution’s argument that a forensic analysis of Jones’s wounds contradicted a claim of self defense.
An expert witness for the prosecution testified at trial that the first two shots to hit Jones were fired from about four feet, but were non-lethal, and that the fatal shot was fired last, from a closer distance and from the opposite direction from the first two.
“As the Attorney General argues, it was unlikely that countering any threat defendant felt would have required all three shots,” Margulies conceded. “As the expert acknowledged, however, the first two shots did not necessarily interfere with Jones’s ability to walk and talk, which leaves open the possibility that defendant believed Jones continued to present a threat even after he fired these shots.”
Presiding Justice James J. Marchiano and Justice Douglas E. Swager, who retired on Wednesday, joined Margulies in her opinion.
The case is People v. Bradford, A116899.
Copyright 2009, Metropolitan News Company