Close X

Two Recent Appellate Reversals

Court of Appeals Reverses Denial of Motion to Suppress

Posted by Benjamin Goldberg | Mar 07, 2016 | 0 Comments

Cobb County Judge Reversed

Terry Jones Mays is facing prosecution in Cobb County Superior Court for RICO and other related felony charges. A motion to suppress Mays's statements was filed, and following a hearing the motion was denied by the trial judge. A certificate of immediate review was issued, and the Court of Appeals subsequently granted Mays' application for interlocutory appeal. On Friday, March 4, 2016 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge, holding that Mays's statements may not be introduced at her upcoming trial.

At issue was application of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Howes v. Fields to the facts of Mays's case. In Howes, the defendant was serving time in prison when law enforcement interviewed him regarding crimes he allegedly committed before being sentenced to prison and unrelated to his conviction. The cops had failed to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings were not required under the facts of the case.

First, the defendant in Howes was not removed from his typical environment and taken to an unfamiliar setting. He was already serving time in prison, and this is a different situation than a person being taken from his home and placed in an interview room at the police station. Second, the atmosphere was not of the coercive type contemplated by Miranda. Finally, the defendant was told at the beginning of the interview that he was free to leave at any time.

Mays had been convicted of some misdemeanor offenses and was placed on probation. One condition of her probation was that she perform community service. Her probation officer became suspicious of the legitimacy of some probation letters she submitted. A probation violation warrant was then taken out accusing Ms. Mays of not performing her community service, among other allegations.

While sitting in jail waiting for her court date on the probation violation hearing, a GBI agent interviewed her. Mays was brought to an interview room in the jail by the jail guards. The GBI agent launched into an extensive interview regarding Mays's community service without first reading her the Miranda warnings. Further, the GBI agent never told Mays she was free to leave the interview until over halfway in, and after Mays made some allegedly incriminating statements.

The Court of Appeals distinguished Mays's situation from that of the defendant in Howes. The former was waiting in jail pending the resolution of her probation violation, while the latter was already sentenced and serving time. Most importantly, Mays was not informed of her ability to terminate the interview, which appellate courts strongly consider when determining whether someone is in custody for purposes of Miranda.

The opinion from this case can be found here.  

About the Author

Benjamin Goldberg

Ben has known since college that he wanted to become a criminal defense attorney. At Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, Ben majored in criminal justice with a focus on pre-law. This helped prepare him for law school, when he returned home to Atlanta, Georgia and attended Georgia State University. While in law school, Ben gained valuable experience during externships with the Georgia Innocence Project, the Federal Defender Program and the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

"Without a Doubt the Best"

"I would highly recommend Ben. There were not any surprises or extra costs. He was very clear on what to expect. Even more impressive was what happened before I went to court and while in court, everything happened exactly as Ben had told me it would. When I was in the court room and Ben needed to make things happen, he was so articulate I felt as though I had an entire team of lawyers."

"Truly an attorney with not just intellect but heart!"

"When Mr. Goldberg came into my life, he went against all odds, believed in my innocence, fought for my justice, and supported me as my lawyer and my friend. I personally believe that when Mr. Goldberg chose to practice law, his goal was not money nor prestige, but was only the well-being of the client. More specifically, he values the lives of the individuals he represents and provides them with the best defense to see to it that justice is served."