#14 North Carolina v. Butler

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Butler.

A man is arrested by the FBI, who gave him both a verbal and written notification of his rights. WB refused to sign a form indicating that he wished to waive his rights. Statements to the agents were included in evidence against him at trial. He was convicted, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction, and the State cried foul.

The question before the court: can a suspect’s statements be used against him if he did not explicitly say he was waiving his Miranda rights?

Facts of the Case

Our case begins at a gas station in Goldsboro, North Carolina, where 2 men are robbing the establishment at gunpoint. As the station attendant attempts to escape, he is shot and ultimately paralyzed by his wound.

A week later, the attendant identified his assailant as WB, and a fugitive warrant was issued for WB’s arrest.

Ultimately the FBI finds WB in an apartment in the Bronx in New York City. According to WB, they entered the apartment at 6am, woke him up, and read him rights.

Specifically, the FBI agent read the following from a card:

Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in Court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questions if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering and at any time until you talk to a lawyer.

Anyone who has turned on an American television in the past 40 years has heard this spiel before – of course this is known as the Miranda Rights. Now this case is not the Miranda case, but Miranda is relevant, so we’ll provide a little info about it at the end.

For now we return to the Bronx, or more accurately New Rochelle, New York, which is where the FBI next took WB for questioning.

Once in an interview room, WB allegedly told the agents that he had completed at least 11 grades of school, so the agents considered WB to be literate and gave him an Advice of Rights form. The form is basically a restating of the Miranda rights, and a space for the suspect to sign to acknowledge they will answer questions without a lawyer present.

According to the FBI agent who testified at his trial, WB affirmed that he understood his rights, and when asked to sign the Advice of Rights form, replied, “I will talk to you but I am not signing any form.” The FBI then reminded WB that he did not have to speak to them without a lawyer, and he again said “I won’t sign the form. I will talk to you but I won’t sign the form.”

After that, WB went on to tell the FBI that he and the other man accused of the robbery had been drinking that day and did discuss committing the robbery. He also confirmed that he was at the gas station at the time of the robbery, but he asserted that he did not actually take part in the robbery and was not the one who shot the gas station attendant.

Fast forward to WB’s trial back in North Carolina and his defense moves to have the FBI’s testimony from WB’s interrogation excluded from evidence. They argue that WB never explicitly confirmed that he wished to waive his right to counsel. In other words, he never signed the form confirming he understood his rights, and he never said out loud definitively that he did not want a lawyer.

The trial court denied the motion and allowed the interrogation findings to be entered into evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, WB was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, and felonious assault.

WB’s defense appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, again arguing that the FBI’s interrogation violated his 5th Amendment rights. Since WB did not explicitly say or indicated that he was waiving his right to counsel, anything he said to police without counsel present should be excluded. And the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, arguing that the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona meant that the government needed to secure explicit waivers of rights in order to use any interactions as evidence.

Of course, the state of North Carolina appealed this decision straight to the Supreme Court and it now comes before us. So, justices, the question for this episode is: does a suspect have to explicitly waive their right to counsel in order for statements they provide after being read their rights to be included in evidence, or can they implicitly waive their rights by talking after they are reminded of their rights?

Does the Miranda ruling require an explicit waiver of one’s right to counsel?

Real quick, we promised earlier to do a bit of a refresher on Miranda. We’ve all heard of it, and we’ve all heard the Miranda rights spiel a million times, but it’s important to know the specific outcome of the case.

There’s actually a lot of parts to the decision, and I’m going to crib from Justia’s summary just to keep things brief. So shout out to Justia.

Here we go.

First:

In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Second:

If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present.

Third:

Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Fourth:

Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.

Fifth:

The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant.

And lastly:

The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions.

And while that is not everything said in the Miranda decision, those are the main bits. Does anyone have any questions about that or want me to reread it? I know it was kind of a lot.

Ruling of the Relitigated Justices

Click here to show how the Relitigated justices ruled on the case…

Votes By Party

North Carolina

0

Argued by Nikki

v.

Butler

3

Argued by Jarret

Votes By Justice

Justice Adam

Butler

Justice Mike

Butler

Justice Graham

Butler

References