People v. Orozco (2019)

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 811 (Orozco).) This rule protects the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 811 (Orozco).) This rule protects the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

“California courts have uniformly come to the conclusion that 13 Perkins controls when a suspect invokes his Miranda right to counsel but later speaks with someone he does not know is an agent of the police.” (People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 812-817 (Orozco) [rejecting application of Edwards rule and deeming Justice Brennan concurrence “dicta”]; accord, People v. Felix (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 439 , 450-453; People v. Guilmette (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1541-1542 …

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 812-813 (Orozco).) The admission of defendant’s statements also did not violate defendant’s due process rights because the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 812-813 (Orozco).) The admission of defendant’s statements also did not violate defendant’s due process rights because the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. 3 Defendant was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murder, based on the special circumstance finding.

However, “California courts have uniformly come to the conclusion that Perkins controls when a suspect invokes his Miranda right to counsel but later speaks with someone he does not know is an agent of the police.” (People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 815 (Orozco) [defendant’s prior invocation of right to counsel did not require suppression of his statements to victim’s mother acting as undercover police agent]; see People v. Felix (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 439 , 451, 4…

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 811 (Orozco).) Miranda was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which “has consistently been accorded a liberal construction.” ( Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 8 at p. 461 .) The exercise of that privilege “will be scrupulously honored,” and “the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.’ ” (Id…

The law is clear that “ ‘mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth 26. when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise does not render a subsequent confession involuntary.… Thus, “[w]hen the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct,” the subsequent statement in response will not be considered involuntarily made.’ ” (Holloway, sup…

(See Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477 , 484–485 (Edwards).) An interrogation includes “express questioning” and “words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” (Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301 .) “The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather …

(See, e.g., People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 815 (Orozco) [rejecting 14 the argument that a defendant’s invocation of right to counsel under Miranda precluded the admission of a subsequent confession made to an undercover agent].) Nonetheless, defendant says Perkins is not controlling, relying on Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Perkins and in particular, a footnote in which Justice Brennan said that while he agreed with the majority, if Mr. Perkins had previously…

(See, e.g., People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 815 (Orozco) [rejecting 14 the argument that a defendant’s invocation of right to counsel under Miranda precluded the admission of a subsequent confession made to an undercover agent].) Nonetheless, defendant says Perkins is not controlling, relying on Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Perkins and in particular, a footnote in which Justice Brennan said that while he agreed with the majority, if Mr. Perkins had previously…

(People v. Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 115 ; see People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 172 [“when law enforcement officers describe the moral or psychological advantages to the accused of telling the truth, no implication of leniency or favorable treatment at the hands of the authorities arises”]; People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 820 [“Law enforcement does not violate due process by informing a suspect of the likely consequences of the suspected crimes…

We so concluded because ‘ “defendant’s conversations with his own visitors are not the constitutional equivalent of [forbidden] police interrogation.” [Citations.]’ ( Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th 668, 758 ; see also Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520, 528 [police did not engage in forbidden interrogation, for purposes of Miranda, by mere placement of officer in room to observe and tape-record conversation between suspect in custody, who had invoked right to silence, and sus…

(People v. Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 115 ; see People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 172 [“[W]hen law enforcement officers describe the moral or psychological advantages to the accused of telling the truth, no implication of leniency or favorable treatment at the hands of authorities arises”]; People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 820 [“Law enforcement does not violate due process by informing a suspect of the likely consequences of the suspected crimes o…

(See People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 820 [“Law enforcement does not violate due process by informing a suspect of the likely consequences of the suspected crimes”]; Spencer, at p. 675 [constitutional violation will be found only where a confession results directly from the threat such punishment will be imposed if the suspect is uncooperative, coupled with a promise of leniency in exchange for cooperation].) The detective’s brief statement, “In order to help you,…

(People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 811 (Orozco).) This rule protects the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by 7 Saucedo asks us to treat any error by counsel as trial court error and reverse unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman).

Involuntary Confession The due process clauses of “[b]oth the state and federal Constitutions bar the prosecution from introducing a defendant’s involuntary confession into evidence at trial.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1176 ; accord, People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 819 .) A coerced or involuntary confession is inadmissible for any purpose.

As to Posada’s argument that he was unaware law enforcement was involved and that the call was being recorded, “[d]eception does not necessarily invalidate an incriminating statement.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 411 ; see People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 819 [police trickery does not alone render a confession involuntary].) “‘The use of deceptive statements during an investigation does not invalidate a confession as involuntary unless the deception is…

Involuntary Confession The due process clauses of “[b]oth the state and federal Constitutions bar the prosecution from introducing a defendant’s involuntary confession into evidence at trial.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1176 ; accord, People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 819 .) A coerced or involuntary confession is inadmissible for any purpose.

As for Hernandez’s citation to his “prior refusal to talk to the police about the case” as a reason for us to conclude that “[t]he rule in Perkins should not apply” to this case, we note “California courts have uniformly come to the conclusion that Perkins [not Miranda] controls when a suspect invokes his Miranda right to counsel but later speaks with someone he does not know is an agent of the police.” (People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 815 ; see also id. at pp. 8…

(Rodriguez, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at p. 199.) “Involuntariness means the defendant’s free will was overborne.” (People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 34 (DePriest).) “‘A confession may be found involuntary if extracted by threats or violence, obtained by direct or implied promises, or secured by the exertion of improper influence.’ [Citation.] However, ‘no single factor is dispositive in determining voluntariness . . . rather[,] courts consider the totality of circumstance…