Thursday, August 20, 2026
Page 1
Third-Party Statement Taken in Violation of Miranda Rightly Admitted, C.A. Declares
Opinion Says Witness’ Remarks Were Sufficiently ‘Uncoerced’ as to Justify Admission Even if Made After the Woman, Under Suspicion, Invoked Her Right to Counsel
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a convicted murderer was not deprived of his constitutional right to due process as a result of the admission of statements at his trial that were obtained during a police interrogation of a witness, who was initially suspected of the crime, even if they were made under circumstances that violated that party’s Miranda rights.
Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody wrote Tuesday’s unpublished opinion, joined in by Justices Kenneth R. Yegan and Hernaldo J. Baltodano, declaring:
“Appellant contends the police violated Miranda. We agree….
“However, a statement ‘may be uncoerced’ even if it was elicited in violation of Miranda.”
Saying that the witness’ comments were “not involuntary under the totality of the circumstances,” Cody opined that the “[a]dmission of the statement did not deprive appellant of…a fair trial” such that reversal of his conviction would be warranted.
Asserting the constitutional violation was Ricardo Soriano, who was convicted of the June 2022 murder of Hector Herrera in Los Angeles. The victim was found around 5 a.m. slumped over in the driver’s seat of a white BMW with a bullet wound to the chest; neither shell casings nor a murder weapon was recovered from the scene.
A few months later, officers with the Los Angeles Police Department contacted Carolyn Serrano, who had been recorded speaking with Soriano while he was in custody on other charges. During those conversations, Soriano coached Serrano on what to say if law enforcement reached out to her.
On Sept. 12, officers arrested Serrano, and Detectives Brandon Bourgeois and Sarah Callian interviewed her in custody after reading her the mandated advisement of rights.
During the interrogation, Serrano admitted that Herrera had dropped her off at a gas station on the morning at issue but initially denied knowing anything about the shooting. When pressed for more information, she said that “I’m not sharing anything” and “I want a lawyer,” to which Bourgeois responded:
“I’m not going to ask you any more questions, okay? I want you to just sit quiet and…to hear me out. Alright?”
Opportunity to Share
He then proceeded to tell her that “an arrest warrant has been signed by a judge,” “[w]e’re giving you the opportunity to share with us what you know,” and that “[i]f at any point you decide…that you want to maybe talk to us….[l]et the jailer know.” She then declared that she no longer wanted an attorney.
Bourgeois interrupted her by asking if she wished to again waive her rights to remain silent and to speak with an attorney, and she acquiesced before telling the detectives that Soriano shot Herrera. Two months later, she reached out to the detectives again and changed her story to say a different man had fired the fatal shots.
At trial, she testified that she only implicated Soriano in the September interrogation because she “said what I felt like was gonna get me out of there.”
A jury convicted Soriano of first-degree murder in 2024, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa Magno sentenced him to an aggregate term of more than 29 years to life in prison.
Cody acknowledged that, while a defendant lacks standing to complain of the violation of a third party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, he may assert a due process violation if he can establish that the statements were rendered unreliable due to police coercion. She wrote:
“Assuming appellant has not forfeited his claim by failing to object below, the claim fails on the merits because Serrano’s September 12 statement was not coerced.”
The jurist noted that a comment is only considered involuntary if it is not the product of a rational intellect and a party’s free will. She remarked:
“In some cases, ‘deliberately continuing to question a suspect after he has invoked his Miranda rights may undermine a defendant’s free will by signaling that “no” is not an acceptable answer.’…But, here, Detective Bourgeois signaled precisely the opposite. He indicated, twice, that he would respect Serrano’s rights and cut her off when she attempted to speak. Bourgeois also indicated that refusing to share what she knew was her ‘obligation’ and ‘choice.’ Bourgeois’s relatively brief entreaty did not break Serrano’s free will.”
Liable for Murder
Addressing Soriano’s contention that the detectives used deceptive tactics by telling her she could be held liable for murder if she didn’t give up the true killer, Cody continued:
“Detective Bourgeois told Serrano, ‘You look equally as responsible. You may not have pulled the trigger, but somebody did and you know who did.’ This is far from an unequivocal statement regarding Serrano’s murder liability.”
She also rejected the view that the statement was the result of protracted harassment, saying:
“Just before Serrano said she no longer wanted a lawyer, Detective Bourgeois indicated she would be booked for murder and could let the jailer know if she wanted to speak. Thus, the direct impetus for Serrano’s change of heart was the simple reality that she was about to be booked and confined for murder….This was no police ruse—despite her statement inculpating appellant, Serrano was booked for murder. Even considering Serrano’s inexperience with criminal law, her September 12 statement was not involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. Admission of the statement did not deprive appellant of due process or a fair trial.”
The case is People v. Soriano, B339792.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company