People v. Wright, 2016 IL App (5th) 120310 (January). Episode 128 (Duration: 5:20)
Police fail to Mirandize defendant arrested for armed robbery because it would have been a waste of time; 86 year conviction and sentence reversed.
Police officer said he recognized Defendant from watching some video surveillance of two robberies. Both involved a large man matching Defendant’s physique and mannerisms.
No Miranda Warnings
Defendant was arrested coming out of a liquor store. The officer did not Mirandize Defendant because the officer thought he was old school and not some 17 year old kid who would talk.
Functional Equivalent of an Interrogation
Here the officer deliberately conversed with Defendant about the evidence against him, and drove him to an area so he could see his girlfriend getting arrested.
This was particularly, evocative and likely to elicit an incriminating response from defendant.
Most people would be susceptible after seeing their loved one implicated in a crime in which he or she had not participated.
The Defendant’s perspective is what is relevant not the officer’s subjective intent.
What happened to defendant was the “functional equivalent” of a police interrogation, and it clearly undermined defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.
You can find more Illinois Evidence SNAFU’s here.
Defendant’s exact statement was that they should let her go because she don’t know nothing about it. Defendant would show them where the gun and mask are at and tell them who gave him the clothes he was wearing.
State argued these are not the kind of statements an innocent man would make.
See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).