State v. Mayer: A Cop’s Misleading Explanation of Miranda
In a case where the defendant, Nicholas Mayer, was accused and convicted of ten criminal counts after robbing a teriyaki restaurant at gunpoint, the Washington State Supreme Court had to decide whether Mayer adequately waived his Miranda rights (derived from the Fifth Amendment), and furthermore, whether that improper Miranda would have mattered when the evidence was stacked against the defendant.
After robbing a teriyaki restaurant, where his sister used to work, at gunpoint, Nicholas Mayer bragged about the robbery to his girlfriend and showed off the loot to his friends. Mayer was subsequently arrested later that same night (one of his “friends” called in a tip to the police) and read a Miranda warning before giving a recorded statement. The Miranda warning included the required language that Mayer was entitled to have a lawyer present with him before any questioning, and that if he could not afford a lawyer the court would appoint one for him. However, when Mayer asked the officer to clarify how he could obtain counsel, the officer informed him that he would not get a lawyer unless and until he was arrested, charged, and taken to court. Mayer decided to waive his rights and give the recorded statement. Mayer admitted to meeting up with his sister and the other robber, going to the restaurant that was robbed, entering with a handgun and demanding money, and finally taking money and getting away.
Before trial, Mayer moved to suppress his statement given to police on the basis that he did not adequately understand his rights before waiving them; that motion was denied and the statements were admitted. At trial, the State called six witnesses (including his own sister, the getaway driver) who testified against Mayer. There was extensive testimony to go along with Mayer’s incriminating statements, and the jury convicted him, sentencing him to 306 months in DOC custody.
On appeal, the Supreme Court had to decide first whether the explanation of Mayer’s rights was satisfactory and then secondly whether the error was harmful enough to have caused the jury to convict him in light of the other evidence against him. The Court decided that the officer who read Mayer his rights probably confused him with his answers to Mayer’s questions and that Mayer did not fully comprehend his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prior to waiving them. The Court reasoned that, by not clarifying to Mayer that he had the right to delay any statement to the police until he had been appointed a lawyer, the officer’s statements to Mayer could have misled Mayer into thinking that he couldn’t exercise his right to consult with an attorney until he had been appointed one. The US Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment (in Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) such that a waiver of Miranda rights had to be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. For Mayer, this was not the case.
Next they had to decide whether all the other evidence, except for the recorded statement, was overwhelming to the point that it necessarily leads to the same result. Based on the DNA evidence collected at the scene of the crime, along with the various statements made by friends and accomplices to the crime that corroborated one another, the State Supreme Court found that Mayer was decisively one of the masked gunmen who carried out the robbery and upheld his conviction, even though they admitted that his recorded statement should have been suppressed.
