It’s a rare occasion indeed when a federal court upholds a state prisoner’s federal habeas corpus claim. The procedural bar to getting relief – showing that a state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” – is quite high.

But Shawn Jackson made it over the hurdle.

Miranda protects suspects only when there’s a custodial interrogation going on. The state court rejected Jackson’s Miranda claim because Bonisteel, a CPS worker interviewing Jackson for a civil claim, “was not engaged in law enforcement activity,” meaning the questioning could not have been an interrogation for Miranda purposes.

The Second Circuit disagreed: “[W]hether the questioning official was engaged in ’law enforcement activity’ at the time incriminating statements are made is not the touchstone for applying the Miranda warning requirements,” the court said. What’s important is whether Bonisteel “objectively ‘should have known’ that her questions were ‘reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response.’”

No Harmless Error, Either

Even rarer is the case where a federal court finds no harmless error in a federal habeas claim. Normally, even if the federal court finds a violation, it concludes that the violation wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the case. Not so here: the Second Circuit said admitting Jackson’s statements was harmful, as “the State was unable to present any physical evidence [of raping his daughter] at trial.” Consequently, the prosecution’s case rested heavily on Jackson’s own statements, and since those statements shouldn’t have been admitted, the court vacated Jackson’s conviction for this rape count.

Bottom Line

Miranda remains as it has before. Police can’t send someone in to speak to a suspect with the hope and intent that the informant will elicit incriminating statements. The fact that the “informant” is a civil government official is immaterial if the suspect’s statements to the informant will send him directly to jail without passing Go.

Related Resources:

  • You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent (Slate)
  • Debate Over Delaying of Miranda Warning (The New York Times)
  • No Automatic Miranda Warnings Trigger in Border Stop (FindLaw’s Second Circuit Blog)
  • No Hablo Bueno: Mistranslated Miranda Means Suppressed Statements (FindLaw’s Ninth Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules