FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Custodial Interrogation – The Right to Counsel in Philadelphia Criminal Cases (May 2015 Law Update)

    PA’s Supreme Court Rules on Preemptive or Anticipatory Miranda Invocations – Not Good for Defendants

    In a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion, our state’s highest court ruled that a 17 year old defendant charged as an adult in a Philadelphia murder case could not make a preemptive invocation of the constitutional right to counsel during interrogation or questioning by law enforcement. The court was hung up on the fact that the invocation occurred 6 days before the actual interrogation occurred. Here’s a discussion of the case, Commonwealth v. Bland (May 2015).

    Related: Constitutional Rights in Philadelphia Criminal Drug & Gun Cases – The 5th Amendment (Part 1)

    Commonwealth v. Bland, May 2015 Pennsylvania Supreme Court

    Bland was a 17 year old Philadelphia resident who was charged with the murder of another Philadelphia resident. Bland was arrested in Florida and placed in a juvenile detention center while awaiting extradition back to Philadelphia. During this time period, his father contacted an attorney who then had Bland sign a form. That form very clearly indicated that Bland was not to be questioned without his attorney present. The attorney then sent a copy of the signed form to law enforcement in Philadelphia, including the District Attorney’s Office and the Philadelphia Police Department’s homicide unit.

    Bland was extradited back to Philadelphia. Six days after signing the form, Bland was questioned by detectives with the Philadelphia Police Department. During questioning, he confessed to the crime and signed a written confession after consulting with his father. He was charged with murder and related crimes, including firearm possession violations.

    Bland’s lawyer sought to suppress the verbal and written confessions, citing the Miranda form. The trial court granted the lawyer’s motion and found that the signed form was a legitimate invocation of his client’s Miranda right to counsel. The court relied on language from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona: if an individual “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning” (emphasis added). The court reasoned that therefore, the interrogation, even though it was 6 days later, was illegal.

    The Commonwealth (District Attorney’s Office) appealed the case to Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court. A three-judge panel of the Superior Court agreed with the trial court. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

    The PA Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and trial court, finding that preemptive or anticipatory Miranda invocations are not valid. In essence, a criminal defendant may only invoke Miranda rights in close proximity to the time that custodial interrogation occurs. The court stated, “[A]n invocation of the Miranda-based right to counsel must be made upon or after actual or imminent commencement of in-custody interrogation.”

    More: Philadelphia Criminal Law in Drug Cases – PA Supreme Court Strikes Drug Sentencing Law (June 2015)

    This case makes it clear that criminal defendants, even minors, cannot invoke their constitutional right to have an attorney present prior to interrogation, unless it is done so immediately prior to the actual interrogation. It’s an unfortunate ruling, especially considering that law enforcement often uses heavy handed interrogation tactics, especially for serious crimes like murder. Such tactics can and do result in cases where an innocent person admits to a crime they didn’t commit.

    GET A FREE CONSULTATION FOR YOUR PHILADELPHIA CRIMINAL CASE – (215) 564-0644

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Read full disclaimer below.

     

     

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"
    (2015-2022)

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Sentencing for 1st Degree Murder in PA

    In this article below we discuss sentencing for 1st degree murder cases in Pennsylvania. In later articles, we will discuss sentencing for 2nd and 3rd degree murder cases. If you or a loved one is facing murder charges in Philadelphia or the surrounding counties,...

    Philadelphia Criminal Trials – Evidence Pointing to Another Perpetrator in Drug Possession or Drug Manufacture Cases

    In criminal trials in Philadelphia, one pretty common defense tactic is pointing the finger at another person at trial. This can raise enough doubt to result in a not guilty verdict by the judge or jury that the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime. Here’s...

    Philadelphia Murder & Gun Possession Cases Increasing in 2021 – A Look at Common Charges & Defenses

    A look at PA criminal law for Murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd Degree), Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Possession of a Firearm, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Carrying a Firearm in Philadelphia (misdemeanor).

    Pennsylvania Murder Charges, Deceased Person’s Statements Used to Prove Guilt

    Defense Trial Strategies – Excluding Statements That Accuse the Defendant Prosecutors often look to a deceased individual’s statements made prior to a murder to show that the defendant is guilty. These statements may point to a history of violence between the deceased...

    Pennsylvania (State) Drug Charges, Dog Sniffs & Constitutional Law

    Federal and Pennsylvania state courts treat narcotics dog searches differently. So different that the same scenario could result in different outcomes in federal versus state court. For example, a Philadelphia resident is pulled over for speeding. During the traffic...