State of Maine v. Aboda

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Aboda

DecidedMay 26, 2009

DocketCUMcr-08-2592

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Aboda (State of Maine v. Aboda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Maine v. Aboda, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

·: . : : ' . ; .' ;~ ,;

Cumberland, ss UNIFIED CRIMINAL c .. ' -' ' .~ ' . ;- I ; I~ \... DOCKET COURT Location: Portland Z.-- -. ·· .. · '.- ~ .J' •. • • J • ·~ \ 3: I 2 Docket No. CR-08-2592 ~' rr,-

State of Maine

V. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Police Aboda STATEMENTS

This matter came before the court on the defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements. A short hearing was held on May 19, 2009 at which time the parties each provided brief arguments and introduced three exhibits for the court's consideration.' State's Exhibit Sl is a photocopy of a one-page Miranda Warning signed by the defendant and by Detective Maryann Bailey of the Portland Police Department, and dated October 18,2008. State's Exhibit S2 is a compact disc containing the audio recording of an interview that Detective Bailey conducted with the defendant on October 18, 2008. State's Exhibit S3 is a transcript of the October 18th interview. The transcript was prepared by the Portland Police Department. The court has reviewed State's S 1 and S3, and it has listened to the audio recording of the interview of the defendant conducted by Detective Bailey. The parties have informed the court that the defendant is a twenty-five year old native of the Sudan who has been in the United States for eight years. He has attended high school here in the United States, but has not graduated.

The defendant's Motion is based on the assertion that he didn't sufficiently understand the Miranda warnings that Detective Bailey provided to him and therefore, his waiver of his

1 According to the court's file, a Sudanese (Acholi) interpreter has been requested in the past, and one may have been used via "Language-line" at an earlier hearing. An interpreter was not present on May 191h. Given the very limited nature of the hearing conducted, Attorney Levine was comfortable proceeding without the assistance of an interpreter. The hearing consisted of the court's being informed of some basic information about the defendant, the introduction of three exhibits for the court's consideration and very brief comments from the attorneys concerning the audio recording of the interview. An interpreter will be necessary for all hearings in this matter in the future. Miranda rights was invalid. The State must establish a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Snow, 513 A.2d 274,276 (Me. 1986). To constitute a valid waiver, a defendant's conduct must amount to an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. State v. Coombs, 704 A.2d 387, 392 (Me. 1998) (quoting State v. Knights, 482 A.2d at 440, quotations omitted and emphasis added). In this case, the defendant was provided Miranda warnings in English. He contends that his waiver of his Miranda rights is invalid based upon his limited English language skills, coupled with his unfamiliarity with Fifth Amendment constitutional protections.

Any waiver of Miranda rights must be made "with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412,421 (1986). It seems axiomatic that if a person were provided Miranda warnings in a language he or she doesn't understand, any waiver of that person's Miranda rights wouldn't be valid. The court is aware of a number of cases that recognize this rather obvious proposition. The vast majority of these cases nevertheless have found a valid waiver of Miranda rights because the evidence in those cases clearly demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the Miranda warnings by the defendant. Those cases include U.S. v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir., 1978) (warnings provided in Spanish spoken with a Mexican accent, whereas defendant spoke Spanish with a Cuban accent and written warnings provided to defendant in Spanish.); U.S. v. Gonzalez, 749 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir., 1984) (defendant orally read his rights in both Spanish and English, he appeared to understand them, he read and signed cards explaining his rights in both languages, and he conversed with the police officer in both Spanish and English.); U.S. v. Heredia-Fernandez, 756 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1984) (written Miranda warnings in Spanish provided to Spanish-speaking defendant who acknowledged understanding of them and defendant had been previously arrested fifteen times so he might fairly have been presumed to be familiar with Miranda warnings.); U.S. v. Burrous, 147 F.3d 111 (2nct Cir. 1998) (sixteen-year-old defendant poorly educated but fluent in spoken English, read Miranda warnings at least twice, indicated he understood them and appeared to comprehend them and defendant had been arrested one month prior on similar charges).

In one case that the court is aware of, the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was deemed to be invalid. In that case, the defendant, a German national, had no knowledge of the American criminal justice system and a poor understanding of the English language. Her English was so

2 broken that interrogators took special precautions to explain the Miranda warnings to her in simpler English terms. U.S. v. Short, 790 F.2d 464 (61h Cir. 1986).

In this case, it is clear to the court that, to a degree, the defendant does understand the English language. He is capable of carrying on a conversation. The crucial question is whether the evidence demonstrates by a preponderance that the defendant had a full awareness of the nature of his Miranda rights and of the consequences of his decision to waive them. The court finds in this case that the evidence does not show that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Most convincing to the court is the fact that every time the defendant was read one ofthe five separate warnings, he indicated he didn't understand it. Moreover, when the detective asked him to verbalize his understanding of each separate warning, he was utterly unable to correctly do so. In fact, his attempts to restate each warning in his own words demonstrate clearly that he did not understand them. The court is not confident that the detective's efforts to explain each warning in different terms to the defendant actually aided the defendant in understanding the warnings.

IT IS ORDERED: Because the court is not satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.

Date: May 26, 2009

3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs CUMBERLAND, ss. POLICE ABODA Docket No PORSC-CR-2008-02592 138 OXFORD ST PORTLAND ME 04101 DOCKET RECORD

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI