by Reg Brown *
Since January 1, 1998, the Florida Supreme Court has reversed death
sentences in thirty-nine of forty-nine direct appeal capital cases.
This seventy-nine percent reversal rate is the highest in the Nation
and has prompted leading state legislators to publicly question
the Florida high court's willingness to apply the law in death penalty
cases.
The most recent controversy about Florida's death penalty jurisprudence
erupted in early July when the Florida Supreme Court vacated six
death sentences in a single day. Each case was decided by a four
to three margin and highlights a pattern of judicial "nullification"
of death penalty sentences.
In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court
reviewed Nathan Ramirez's conviction and death sentence for his
role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a seventy-one
year-old widow. Ramirez and another male broke into Boroski's home,
killed her pet dog, tied her to a bed with telephone cords and raped
her. The two men then forced Boroski into a car _ along with the
dead dog _ and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her
twice in the head. After finishing the gruesome killing, Ramirez
and his cohort took a few dollars and some change from Boroski's
purse and spent it playing video games.
Police investigators discovered some of Boroski's possessions in
Ramirez's custody and asked him to come to the police station for
a videotape interview. Ramirez agreed. The investigators began the
interview without a Miranda warning, because they believed at the
time that Ramirez was a fact witness rather than a murder suspect.
Within five minutes, however, Ramirez admitted being in the Boroski
home on the night of the murder. One of the investigators quickly
stopped the interview and said to his colleague
Why don't you let [Ramirez] know about his rights. I mean, he's
already told us about going in the house and whatever. I don't think
that's going to change [Ramirez's] desire to cooperate with us.
The colleague immediately read Ramirez his Miranda rights which
Ramirez acknowledged and waived. Ramirez then proceeded to relate
in detail how he and his cohort broke into Boroski's home and killed
her.
Despite the investigators' careful and prudent approach, four Florida
Supreme Court justices reversed Ramirez's conviction and sentence.
The justices' basis for reversal: a claim that Ramirez's Miranda
warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally "minimize[d]
and downplay[ed]" the significance of his rights and exploited
his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.
In a second case, Almeida v. State, 1999 WL 506963, the same four
justice majority relied on an alleged Miranda violation to reverse
the conviction and death sentence of triple-murderer Osvaldo Almeida.
In Almeida's case, investigators provided a Miranda warning before
beginning any questioning and also obtained a signed waiver. Several
minutes later, Almeida made an inculpatory statement about an unrelated
killing. The investigators taped the rest of the questioning, leading
to the following taped discussion:
Q: All right. Prior to us going on this tape here, I read your
Miranda rights to you, that is the form that I have here in front
of you, is that correct? Did you understand all of these rights
that I read to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you wish to speak to me now without an attorney present?
A: Well, what good is an attorney going to do?
Q: Okay, well you already spoke to me and you want to speak to
me again on tape?
Q: We are, we are just going to talk to you as we talked to you
before, that is all.
A: Oh, sure.
Almeida then repeated his earlier inculpatory statement and confessed
to two other murders.
The Florida Supreme Court nevertheless threw out Almeida's confession,
conviction and death sentence, on the grounds that his statement
about an attorney was an "unequivocal question that was prefatory
to _ and possibly determinative of _ the invoking of a right [to
counsel]" and "cast doubt on the knowing and intelligent
nature of [Almedia's] prior [Miranda] waiver."
The decisions in Almeida and Ramirez are clearly at odds with the
U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Davis v. United States, 512 U.S.
452, and Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, and will undoubtedly be
appealed. In the meantime, however, the decisions will "handcuff
the cops" in Florida and add to Miranda's thirty-year legacy
of harmful effects on law enforcement. See generally Paul G. Cassell
& Richard Fowles, Handcuffing the Cops? A Thirty-Year Perspective
on Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement, 50 Stan. L. Rev.
1055 (1998).
As a result of the Almeida decision, for instance, Florida's police
investigators are now arguably obligated to function as "station
house lawyers" whenever a suspect makes an ambiguous statement
about the possible benefits or drawbacks of invoking the right to
counsel. Similarly, as a result of the ruling in Ramirez, investigators
must now be sensitive about tone, inflection and body language when
reading Miranda warnings, in order to avoid "exploiting"
or "tricking" suspects into waivers of their rights.
Unfortunately, even good faith compliance with the Almeida and
Ramirez decisions may not assure affirmances in future cases if
the Florida Supreme Court continues engaging in anti-death penalty
judicial activism. Such activism was clearly at work in three other
death penalty cases decided on the same day as Almeida and Ramirez,
where the court's majority reversed death sentences on dubious "proportionality"
grounds. It was also at work in a fourth case where the court's
majority ruled that it is "cruel and unusual punishment"
to impose the death sentence in any case where the defendant is
under the age of seventeen when he or she commits the relevant offense.
Of course, the Florida legislature's outcry over the court's recent
decisions _ and a possible rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court next
year _ may prompt greater judicial restraint in the future. If so,
the Florida Supreme Court's "Miranda warning" decisions
may yet yield some long-term positive results.
* Mr. Brown is Assistant General Counsel to Florida Governor Jeb
Bush.
|