People v. Gary, 31 N.Y.2d 68 (1972)

A suspect’s initial invocation of the right to remain silent does not permanently bar subsequent questioning, provided the suspect is re-advised of their Miranda rights and voluntarily chooses to speak.

Summary

Gary was convicted of manslaughter after initially pleading not guilty. Prior to the plea, a Huntley hearing was conducted regarding the admissibility of his statements. Gary initially told a patrolman he stabbed a man, and later, after being taken to a precinct and read his Miranda rights, he indicated he wished to remain silent. About an hour later, an Assistant District Attorney re-advised Gary of his Miranda rights, and Gary then agreed to speak, giving a statement. The court addressed whether the initial invocation of the right to silence precluded any subsequent questioning. The court held that re-advising the suspect of his rights and obtaining a voluntary waiver allows for subsequent questioning.

Facts

1. Gary approached a police officer and admitted to stabbing a man.
2. The officer took Gary to a police station.
3. At a different precinct, a detective advised Gary of his Miranda rights.
4. Gary signed a form indicating he understood his rights and wished to remain silent.
5. Questioning ceased, and Gary was transported to another precinct.
6. Approximately one hour later, an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) advised Gary of his Miranda rights again.
7. Gary indicated he was willing to talk and gave a statement, which was recorded.

Procedural History

1. Gary was indicted for murder.
2. A Huntley hearing was held to determine the admissibility of Gary’s statements.
3. The trial court found the statement admissible.
4. Gary pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree.
5. Gary appealed the trial court’s decision to admit the statement, arguing that his initial invocation of the right to remain silent should have barred any subsequent questioning.

Issue(s)

1. Whether, after a suspect invokes their right to remain silent, can law enforcement officials initiate a subsequent interrogation after re-advising the suspect of their Miranda rights?

Holding

1. No, because neither Miranda nor any broader constitutional mandate prohibits a subsequent request for a statement, made otherwise than in the course of continued importunity or coercive interrogation in the guise of a request for reconsideration, after the suspect has been readvised of their rights.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between a continuous interrogation and a subsequent request for reconsideration after a break in time and a reiteration of Miranda warnings. The court emphasized that Miranda prohibits the continuation of an interrogation after a suspect invokes their right to silence, but it does not create a permanent bar to any future questioning. The court noted that the key is whether the subsequent request is made in the course of continued importunity or coercion. The court reasoned that, in this case, the hour-long gap between the initial refusal to speak and the subsequent questioning by the ADA, coupled with the re-administration of Miranda warnings, indicated that Gary’s decision to speak was voluntary. The court cited United States v. Brady, United States v. Collins, and People v. Rice to support its conclusion. The court stated, “that what Miranda requires is that ‘interrogation must cease’ until new and adequate warnings have been given and there is a reasonable basis for inferring that the suspect has voluntarily changed his mind”.