Commw. v. Mavredakis, 030700
Decision Date | 07 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. SJC-07801,SJC-07801 |
Citation | 430 Mass. 848,725 N.E.2d 169 |
Parties | (Mass. 2000) COMMONWEALTH v. EMMANUEL MAVREDAKIS |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Relevancy and materiality. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of
constitutional rights, Self-incrimination, Assistance of counsel, Equal protection of laws.
Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Capital case. Search and Seizure, Warrant, Probable
cause. Joint Enterprise.
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 25, 1995.
A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Francis X. Spina, J., and the cases were
tried before Mary-Lou Rup, J.
Donald A. Harwood for the defendant.
Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney (Lori K. Odierna, Assistant District Attorney,
with him) for the Commonwealth.
§ 33E. Because we conclude that art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
requires the police to inform a suspect of an attorney's efforts to contact him for purposes of
providing legal advice, the majority of the defendant's statements to the police should have been
suppressed and, accordingly, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
1. The murder. We summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
and their two friends, Carlo Siniscalchi and the defendant, arrived at the KFC to pick Eddie up
after work. Approximately twenty minutes later, the foursome drove to the Baladinakis home.
They discussed breaking into the KFC. Eddie claimed fatigue and declined to join the venture.
John and the defendant went inside the house and spoke with John's girl friend, Catherine Zayas.
John told Zayas that he, the defendant, and Siniscalchi were going to get a gun2 and break into
the KFC. John, Siniscalchi, and the defendant left shortly thereafter, with Siniscalchi driving.
They arrived at the KFC at approximately 1 A.M., but saw that the lights were still on. Rather
than entering while someone was there, they went to a grocery store and bought a few items
sometime before 1:31 A.M. Returning to the KFC and seeing that nobody was there, John and
the defendant, using John's keys,3 unlocked a door to the KFC, while Siniscalchi remained in
the car.
When they entered, they found the safe open. Fearing that the night manager might return, the
defendant suggested that they leave immediately. John insisted that he wanted to get all of the
money from the safe.
Thomas Henson, the shift supervisor on duty that night, returned to the KFC after making a night
deposit. John and the defendant ran to the back of the restaurant and hid. Henson walked to the
office and turned on the light. Then, he walked to the kitchen where he was shot three times.
Despite being shot, Henson moved toward the front of the restaurant and collapsed. After he fell
to the floor, he was shot twice more.
The defendant and John took approximately $1,000 in bills and rolled coins from three cash
register drawers that were in the safe. They also took receipts, a police scanner, and a white
towel. They wiped off the surfaces that they had touched and placed the drawers in water-filled
sinks, in an attempt to remove their fingerprints. Siniscalchi was not outside waiting, so they
walked toward a pizza shop to call him. As they walked, John carried the money in a white
plastic grocery bag. On the way, they passed by Agri-Mark, a dairy processing plant. An
employee on his break saw them walking by and noticed that one of them was carrying a white
plastic bag. Several rolls of coins were discovered where the two of them had been walking.
Shortly thereafter, Siniscalchi picked up the defendant and John and they drove to the defendant's
house. The defendant hid some items in his cellar. Siniscalchi and John then went to John's
home. There, Siniscalchi and John told Eddie and Zayas what had happened. They told Zayas
that, if the police should question her, she should say that the defendant, John, and Siniscalchi
went to "Worthington Street with some girls" after they picked Eddie up from work at the KFC.
They were also instructed to tell the police that Eddie had left his gun at the KFC and was
planning to get it in the morning when he went to work.
John, and Siniscalchi the night before. The police sought to locate each of these individuals in an
attempt to confirm Eddie's statement.
At approximately 8:40 P.M.,5 two police officers arrived at the family-owned restaurant where
the defendant worked. They identified themselves to the defendant and asked him to accompany
them to the police station. The defendant asked if it was about the murder at the KFC. When one
of the officers asked the defendant why he had asked that question, the defendant said that his
father had told him something about it. The motion judge found that the defendant went
voluntarily with the officers to the police station, and that the defendant was not a suspect at that
time. As he was leaving, the defendant asked a waitress to telephone his father so that his father
could close down the restaurant for the night.
At 9:45 P.M., Eddie gave the police a statement implicating John, Siniscalchi, and the defendant
in the shooting. The motion judge found that at that time, 9:45 P.M., the defendant became a
suspect and was no longer free to leave.
after conferring with Lieutenant Higgins, he determined that the defendant had not requested to
speak with a lawyer. Although Attorney Leary demanded that the defendant not be questioned
further until he arrived at the station,6 the police continued their interrogation. The police did
not inform the defendant of Attorney Leary's call.
The defendant's father had also contacted a second lawyer, Steven Newman. Because Attorney
Newman was closer to the police station than Attorney Leary, it was agreed that Attorney
Newman would go to the station.7 Attorney Newman and the defendant's father arrived at the
station at 10:30 P.M. and asked to see the defendant. The defendant, however, was not told that
his father and Attorney Newman were there until 11:05 P.M.8
At approximately 10:40 P.M., while Attorney Newman was waiting downstairs, the defendant,
who, up to that point had denied involvement in the shooting, admitted his involvement. In
response to questions about who had shot the victim, the defendant stated, "We didn't mean to
shoot [the victim]," and was placed under arrest.9
At approximately 11:05 P.M., the defendant was informed that his father and Attorney Newman
were in the station, and he was asked whether he wished to speak to them. The defendant, who
by then was in the process of writing out...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Middleton
...People v. McCauley, 163 Ill.2d 414, 206 Ill.Dec. 671, 645 N.E.2d 923 (1994); West v. Cmmw., 887 S.W.2d 338 (1994); Com. v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000); People v. Bender, 452 Mich. 594, 551 N.W.2d 71 (1996); State v. Roache, 148 N.H. 45, 803 A.2d 572 (2002); State v. Ree......
-
Com. v. Gonzalez
...our citizens under art. 12 to be more expansive than those guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 858, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000) (art. 12 provides broader protection from self-incrimination than does the Fifth Amendment to the United States......
-
Commonwealth v. Murphy
...consideration is whether the Federal rule adequately protects the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts." Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 858, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000) (art. 12 provides more protection than Fifth Amendment). This court looks "to the text, history, and our prior in......
-
Commonwealth v. Rivera
...in the home invasion, was obtained in violation of art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000), and that the redacted version of his statement that was introduced at trial violated his constitutional right to presen......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...West v. Kentucky, 887 S.W.2d338121(continued) (Ky. 1994); State v. Matthews, 408 So.2d 1274 (La. 1982); Commonwealth v.Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000); Peoplev. Bender, 452 Mich. 594,551 N.W.2d 71 (1996); State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237, 627 A.2d 630 (1993); People v.Arthur,22 ......
-
Entering the case
...father tells the police that an attorney is coming to the police station to represent the arrestee); Commonwealth v. Mavredakis , 430 Mass. 848, 725 N.E.2d 169, 176 & n.13 (Mass. 2000) (finding a similar right under Massachusetts law and collecting cases from other jurisdictions that reject......
-
§ 24.10 Waiver of Miranda Rights
...suspect, under interrogation, from receiving the immediately available assistance of his own attorney); Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 725 N.E.2d 169 (Mass. 2000) (information regarding the immediate availability of an identified attorney who is actually able to provide assistance has a bearin......
-
§ 24.10 WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS
...suspect, under interrogation, from receiving the immediately available assistance of his own attorney); Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 725 N.E.2d 169 (Mass. 2000) (information regarding the immediate availability of an identified attorney who is actually able to provide assistance has a bearin......