Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings — waiver

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings — waiver

Where a suspect, asked if Brown understood his Miranda rights, nodded his head and responded “pshh,” he showed he understood his rights.

“Looking at the totality of the circumstance, we feel it is clear that Brown understood and waived his rights. Officers gave Miranda warnings to Brown twice. After each recitation, he made it known that he understood those rights and proceeded to answer questions. It is immaterial that defendant did not sign a waiver form or even utter a clear yes in response to the first recitation of Miranda.”

“Even if this Court were to dismiss Brown’s upward nod as ambiguous, Brown’s immediate actions constituted an implied waiver. Brown has had substantial experience with the criminal justice system due to six previous convictions. Despite his experience, Brown did not request a lawyer or that questioning cease. See United States v. Banks, 78 F.3d 1190, 1198 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding waiver where defendant had “prior experience with law enforcement officials”) vacated on other grounds by Mills v. United States, 519 U.S. 990 (1996). Instead, it appears that Brown voluntarily provided information in the hope that he could make a deal with police. Thus, Brown asked Goodwin if there was anything Goodwin could do for him after Brown answered a few questions. In light of Brown’s experience and eagerness to strike a deal, it is clear that Brown understood his rights and thought he might benefit from waiving them. See United States v. Upton, 512 F.3d 394, 399 (7th Cir. 2008). Brown also did not answer all of Goodwin’s questions, indicating that Brown understood he had the right to remain silent. Brown told Goodwin that he was carrying the gun to protect himself because the ‘80s babies’ had a ‘hit’ out on him. However, when Goodwin asked Brown to name a specific individual within that faction who ordered the ‘hit,’ Brown refused to answer. There can be an implied waiver where a defendant ‘selectively chose not to answer some of the questions that were put to him.’ Banks, 78 F.3d at 1198.”

Affirmed.

11-1344 U.S. v. Brown

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Pallmeyer, J., Cudahy, J.