holding that an officer's statement that the interrogation is "between you and me" subverted the Miranda warning that any statement the suspect makes "can and will be used against" him, "rendering in violation of Miranda all statements the suspect thereafter made during that interrogation"
How later courts described this case
- holding that an officer's statement that the interrogation is "between you and me" subverted the Miranda warning that any statement the suspect makes "can and will be used against" him, "rendering in violation of Miranda all statements the suspect thereafter made during that interrogation"
- concluding that the detective’s statement “this is between you and me, bud” violated Miranda by “undermining the warning” that the defendant’s statements could be used against him
- holding that police officer’s statement to defendant mid-interrogation, “[t]his is between you and me, bud. Only me and you are here, all right?” negated prior waiver of Miranda rights
- noting that the petitioner, though moving to suppress his statement to police as involuntarily obtained, did not testify that his confession was the product of the interrogating detective’s coercive comment; thus, "we do not have even [the petitioner’s] word that [the detective’s] improper comment overbore his will and produced his confession”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MURPHY, J.,
concurring and dissenting, in which BELL, C.J. joins.
I agree that the Petitioner is entitled to a new trial. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the detective’s improper promise of confidentiality “did not render Petitioner’s statements involuntary under either federal or state constitutional law, or Maryland common law.” In my opinion, an incriminating statement that results from a promise of confidentiality is simply not the product of a “knowing and intelligent” waiver. 1 I would therefore hold that, on remand, the State is prohibited from making any use — direct or derivative — of anything that Petitioner stated after being told, “this is just between you and me[.]”
Chief Judge BELL has authorized me to state that he joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.
. My opinion is consistent with State v. Carroll, 138 N.H. 687 , 645 A.2d 82, 85 (1994), State v. Stanga, 617 N.W.2d 486, 490-91 (S.D.2000), and United States v. Conley, 859 F.Supp. 830, 845-46 (W.D.Pa.1994), which are cited in Andrew V. Jezic, Frank Molony & William E. Nolan, Maryland Law of Confessions § 3:12 at 93 (2006), as well as with State v. Burr, 126 Ariz. 338 , 615 P.2d 635, 637 (1980); State v. Tamerius, 234 Neb. 121 , 449 N.W.2d 535, 537 (1989); United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1031 (3d Cir.1993); State v. McConkie, 755 A.2d 1075, 1077-79 (Me.2000); State v. Pillar, 359 N.J.Super. 249 , 820 A.2d 1, 11-12 (2003); Jones v. State, 65 P.3d 903, 907-08 (Alaska App.2003); and State v. Parker, 160 N.H. 203 , 999 A.2d 314, 320 (2010).