Commonwealth v. Rivera
464 Mass. 56 (2013)
Rule of Law:
Under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, police have a duty to inform a suspect of an attorney's legal advice directed to them, such as 'don't talk,' but police have no duty to relay an attorney's instruction directed at the police, such as 'stop questioning my client.' The responsibility for invoking the right to silence rests with the suspect, not the attorney.
Facts:
- On August 10, 2001, two armed and masked men, Terrence Brown and Nathan Rivera, entered an apartment occupied by Karen Young, Wei Li, and Roland Chow.
- The assailants bound the three occupants' wrists and ankles with duct tape.
- During the home invasion, Young recognized one of the assailants and said, 'Nathan, is that you? Why are you doing this? We grew up together.'
- After Young spoke, the Hispanic man (identified as Rivera) said 'Bone, take care of this,' a reference to Brown's nickname, 'T-Bone.'
- The assailants searched the apartment for drugs and money.
- One of the men shot Young six times in the head and Chow once in the head, killing them both.
- The assailant attempted to shoot Li, but the gun was out of ammunition.
- Police investigators found a fingerprint from Brown's right thumb on the roll of duct tape left at the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrence Brown and Nathan Rivera were indicted in state court on charges including two counts of murder in the first degree.
- Brown filed a pretrial motion in the trial court to suppress statements he made to police after his attorney telephoned the police station.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge denied Brown's motion to suppress.
- Rivera filed several motions to sever his trial from Brown's, which the trial judge denied.
- After a joint trial, a jury convicted both defendants of murder in the first degree.
- The defendants filed a direct appeal of their convictions 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 that his attorney told the police not to question him violate the suspect's right to counsel under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, when the police did inform the suspect that the attorney had been retained and was on his way?
Opinions:
Majority - Cordy, J.
No, the failure to relay the attorney's instruction does not violate the suspect's rights. The court held that there is a critical distinction between an attorney's legal advice aimed at the defendant (e.g., 'tell my client not to talk to police') and an attempt by the attorney to invoke his client’s right to silence by issuing a directive to the police (e.g., 'don't talk to my client'). The duty established in Commonwealth v. Mavredakis and clarified in Commonwealth v. McNulty requires police to relay the former, as it bears directly on the suspect's ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. However, the court declined to extend this duty to the latter situation, affirming the principle that the responsibility for invoking Miranda protections 'rests squarely in the hands of criminal defendants,' not their attorneys acting from afar. Therefore, because the police informed Brown that an attorney was retained for him and was on his way, and Brown chose to continue the interview, his subsequent statements were admissible.
Analysis:
This decision refines and arguably narrows the scope of the duty established in Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, which provides suspects in Massachusetts with greater protection than the Fifth Amendment. The court drew a fine but critical line between an attorney's advice intended for the client and a direct command to the police. This holding reinforces that the ultimate power to invoke or waive the right to counsel and silence lies with the suspect themselves, preventing attorneys from unilaterally halting an interrogation without the client's direct participation. For future cases, this clarifies that police satisfy their duty under Article 12 by conveying information that enables the suspect's choice, not by acting on an attorney's direct orders to them.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Rivera (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"