People v. Gary, 45 N.Y.2d 911 (1978)
r
r
A suspect who initially exercises the right to remain silent may later voluntarily waive that right and make a statement, provided the police have scrupulously honored the initial decision to remain silent and there is a sufficient break in the interrogation to dissipate any taint from prior questioning.
r
r
Summary
r
Gary was arrested for rape and given Miranda warnings, after which he stated he did not wish to speak to the police. The police questioned him anyway, eliciting no incriminating information. After the interrogation, while being booked, Gary spontaneously stated that he wanted to make a statement. He was re-Mirandized, and then gave a confession. The New York Court of Appeals held that despite the initial violation of Gary’s right to remain silent, the subsequent confession was admissible because of the break in questioning and the initiation of the booking process, which purged the taint of the earlier improper interrogation. The court found Gary’s later decision to speak was unprompted and voluntary.
r
r
Facts
r
Gary was arrested for rape and brought to the police precinct. He was given Miranda warnings. Gary stated that he understood his rights but did not want to talk to the police officers. The officers proceeded to question him about the rape, but Gary did not provide any incriminating responses. After the officers ended their interrogation, they began to process Gary’s booking. During booking, Gary suddenly announced that he wanted to make a statement.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The trial court admitted Gary’s confession into evidence. Gary was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether, after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent and is improperly questioned, a subsequent confession is admissible if the suspect later initiates a statement after a break in the interrogation and commencement of the booking process.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because given the pronounced break in the interrogation, the commencement of the booking process, the absence of any incriminating responses to the police questioning, and Gary’s subsequent unprompted decision to make a statement, the initial unlawful questioning did not taint the spontaneity of the later confession.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the principle that when a suspect exercises the right to remain silent, the police must scrupulously honor that decision, citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) and People v. Wander, 47 N.Y.2d 724 (1979). The court found that the police violated this obligation by questioning Gary after he invoked his right to remain silent. However, the court also noted that a suspect can change their mind and voluntarily make a statement even after initially asserting the right to remain silent, citing People v. Buxton, 44 N.Y.2d 33, 37. The court reasoned that the pronounced break in the interrogation, the commencement of the booking process, and the lack of any incriminating responses during the initial questioning, combined with Gary’s unprompted decision to make a statement, demonstrated that the initial unlawful questioning did not taint the spontaneity of the later confession. Therefore, the court held that the confession was admissible. The Court emphasized the importance of a