NY Appellate Court Rules that Pre-Arraignment Script Read to Suspects by Prosecutors is Unconstitutional
/A panel of New York State appellate judges overturned the convictions of three men on Wednesday after finding that their constitutional rights had been violated by a method of interviewing suspects, used only in Queens, before they are arraigned in court.
The Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, vowed to appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court. But if it stands, it could throw into question untold numbers of other convictions.
All prosecutors in New York City seek to interview suspects before arraignment. But since 2007, prosecutors with the Queens district attorney’s office have read defendants a prepared script that includes notifications that they will have an opportunity to give information about their alibis and that the office will investigate anything about the case they request.
The script also informs defendants that this is their only chance to speak with the prosecutor before arraignment. After these remarks are read, the defendants are read their Miranda rights, as required before any suspect is questioned.
The four judges of the Appellate Division’s Second Department ruled that the procedure, which they called a preamble to the Miranda warnings, added “information and suggestion” that sent a “muddled and ambiguous” message to the suspects about their constitutional right against self-incrimination.
“For these reasons, it is far more likely that the recitation of the preamble will serve to confuse, or at worst, mislead, suspects as to the nature of their rights and the consequences of waiving them,” the ruling held.
The judges ruled that videotaped statements made by the three defendants after such interviews should not have been played during their respective trials. The three defendants were convicted in separate cases in 2010; two were convicted of attempted robbery, the other of attempted murder. The judges ordered a new trial for each.
Christopher Dunn, associate legal director with the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling should lead to the end of the practice.
“I don’t think there’s any question but that this is taking down the entire program” as it has existed, said Mr. Dunn, who signed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case challenging the program.
But in a statement, Mr. Brown said that the remarks the judges took issue with had been removed from the script more than three years ago, and that further changes were made on Wednesday as a result of the new ruling.
He added that the program was created in response to the call for videotaped interrogations in an effort to prevent wrongful convictions.
But the judges said the way the interview was conducted in at least one of the three cases “raises doubt about that assertion.”
