Commonwealth v. McNulty
458 Mass. 305 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, police have an affirmative duty to immediately and fully inform a suspect in custody of the specific content of their attorney's communication, including the attorney's request to speak, imminent arrival, and advice to remain silent, for the suspect's subsequent waiver of Miranda rights to be considered knowing and intelligent.
Facts:
- On the night of March 28-29, 2001, Jerome McNulty was in an apartment with his girlfriend, Linda Correia.
- Also in the apartment were Linda's children, her sister's children, and her sister's friend, Heather Colaban.
- In the early morning of March 29, Colaban and Linda's ten-year-old daughter, AlexSandra, heard banging and Linda screaming for help from her locked bedroom.
- McNulty emerged from the bedroom wearing a blood-soaked shirt and holding a knife.
- McNulty slashed Colaban in the face and shoulders and slashed AlexSandra in her upper thigh before leaving the apartment.
- Linda Correia was found with eleven stab or cut wounds; she was taken to the hospital but died from blood loss about ten hours after surgery.
- McNulty walked to a nearby employment agency, claimed he had been mugged, and was apprehended by police shortly thereafter.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerome McNulty filed a pretrial motion in the Superior Court to suppress his custodial statement to police.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge denied the motion to suppress.
- McNulty was tried before a jury in Superior Court and convicted of murder in the first degree and two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.
- McNulty filed a timely notice of appeal from his convictions.
- While the direct appeal was pending, McNulty filed a motion for a new trial, which was remanded to the Superior Court.
- The trial judge denied the motion for a new trial after a nonevidentiary hearing.
- McNulty's appeal from the denial of his post-trial motion was consolidated with his direct appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the failure of police to inform a suspect in custody of the specific content of his attorney's communication—including the attorney's request to speak with the suspect, his imminent arrival, and his advice for the suspect to remain silent—violate the suspect's right to counsel under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Botsford, J.
Yes, the failure of police to fully inform the suspect of his attorney's communication violates the suspect's right to counsel under Article 12. The police have an affirmative duty to immediately inform a suspect of their attorney's specific efforts to provide assistance. In this case, the attorney, Buso, communicated four key points: 1) he represented the defendant, 2) he wanted to speak to the defendant, 3) he advised the defendant not to talk to police, and 4) he would be at the station shortly. The police only conveyed that an attorney had been appointed, failing to communicate the other three points which are critical to 'actualizing' the abstract Miranda rights into a concrete opportunity for legal assistance. Because the police did not adequately convey the substance of the message, McNulty's subsequent waiver was not knowing or intelligent. Therefore, all statements and actions taken after the attorney's initial call at 10:31 a.m., including McNulty's signing of the written statement, should have been suppressed. The admission of the full, signed statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder conviction, as it could have significantly undermined his mental state defense.
Dissenting - Gants, J.
No, the police actions did not violate the suspect's rights in a way that requires reversal. While the police improperly delayed informing the suspect, they ultimately satisfied their duty under Commonwealth v. Mavredakis by informing McNulty that an attorney had been appointed and that he could stop talking and speak with him 'at this time.' The duty to inform is a duty to notify a suspect of an attorney's availability, not a duty to act as a messenger and relay the attorney's specific legal advice. Expanding the rule to include relaying advice would undermine the bright-line nature of the rule. Because McNulty's waiver was knowing and intelligent, only the statements made between the attorney's call and the waiver were inadmissible, and their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as they were largely cumulative.
Concurring - Cordy, J.
Yes, the police conduct violated the suspect's rights. I agree with the majority that the police failed to adequately inform McNulty of his attorney's efforts and that this error was not harmless. However, I agree with the dissent that the police have no obligation to communicate the substance of an attorney's legal advice. The constitutional inadequacy was the failure to inform McNulty that his attorney had telephoned, wanted to speak with him, and was on his way to the station. This specific information regarding the attorney's active efforts is what is necessary to 'actualize' the abstract right to counsel.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies, and arguably expands, the police's 'duty to inform' under Massachusetts's Article 12, creating a higher standard than the federal one established in Moran v. Burbine. The court mandates that police convey not just the existence of counsel but the specific, critical details of an attorney's efforts to assist, including imminent arrival and requests to speak. The sharp division between the majority, concurrence, and dissent highlights the unsettled question of whether this duty extends to relaying an attorney's actual legal advice. This precedent heightens the risk of statement suppression in Massachusetts if police are not diligent in relaying the full substance of an attorney's communications to a suspect in custody.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. McNulty (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"