People v. Redgebol, 07SA112.

Citation184 P.3d 86
Decision Date27 May 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07SA112.,07SA112.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sebet REDGEBOL, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Carol Chambers, District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, Melissa Drazen-Smith, Deputy District Attorney, Centennial, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Tina Fang, Deputy State Public Defender, Englewood, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee.

Chief Justice MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

I. Introduction

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court, pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 and section 16-12-102(2), C.R.S. (2007). The People challenge the trial court's order suppressing statements made by the defendant Sebet Redgebol during a custodial interrogation. The trial court suppressed the statements because Redgebol, a recent Sudanese refugee to the United States, did not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and because the investigating officer did not properly honor Redgebol's request for a lawyer.

We now affirm the trial court's order. We hold that because of the inadequate translation of the Miranda advisement, the substantial miscommunication between the defendant and the officer, and the defendant's cultural background and limited intellectual functioning, he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights and agree to speak to the officer without a lawyer present. In addition, we find that after the defendant unambiguously requested a lawyer, the officer did not honor the request by ending the questioning and leaving the room.

II. Facts and Procedural History

Redgebol is charged with sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. The victim was fifteen years old when the alleged assault occurred. A member of the Dinka tribe, Redgebol grew up in a small village in southern Sudan. He came to the United States as a United Nations refugee,1 and had been living in this country, specifically the Denver metropolitan area, for six months when he was arrested. Since arriving here, Redgebol and his family lived in the house of the victim and her family. Redgebol, who has never attended school, speaks the Dinka language and only has a limited understanding of English gained from watching daytime television.

After Redgebol was arrested, he was transported to the Arapahoe County jail so he could be interviewed by Detective Todd Frederickson of the Aurora Police Department. However, Detective Frederickson had to first find a Dinka interpreter. This proved difficult; indeed, Detective Frederickson testified at the suppression hearing that he was "not able to find anyone who had even heard of the Dinka language." Eventually, after Redgebol had been in jail for a day and a half, Detective Frederickson did locate a Dinka translator, Helen Abyei.

Abyei was also a native of Sudan. Her native tribal language was Ngogo, but she also spoke Dinka, Arabic, and English. At the time of Redgebol's questioning, Abyei had been translating for Sudanese refugees for six years: two years in Egypt and four years in the United States. Since coming to the United States, Abyei had worked as a hospital translator, a job for which she received training and was certified. Abyei had not been trained to interpret criminal law terminology or concepts, and testified at the suppression hearing that she had not translated for the police prior to the questioning of Redgebol. Abyei had also never translated formal court proceedings, nor was she certified to interpret such a proceeding.

Because all of the jail's interview rooms were occupied, Detective Frederickson conducted the interview in the sheriff's paperwork room, where there was no video recording equipment. As a result, the only record of the interrogation is an audio recording, for which no official transcript exists.

At the beginning of the audio recording, before Frederickson has even introduced himself, Redgebol can be heard speaking. When the detective asked Abyei what Redgebol was saying, Abyei replied, "He's asking if you are an advocate or something. I don't know what it is."

Detective Frederickson first attempted to explain to Redgebol his right to remain silent:

Frederickson: Okay. First, you have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?

Redgebol:2 He say, "Why should I remain silent?" He say, "Why should I keep quiet? I have the right to tell my — to tell the truth."

Frederickson: Yes, sir, you have the right to tell the truth. But you also have the right to not tell me anything if you want.

Redgebol: He say, "I will never keep quiet. I have been looking for somebody so that I talk to you for like two days ago, but I found nobody, so since you came [Frederickson started interrupting at this point and speaking over Abyei] I would like to talk to you."

Frederickson: Okay, I just want you to be fully aware that you don't have to talk to me today if you don't want to.

Redgebol then stated that he did want to talk to the detective. In response, Detective Frederickson asked Redgebol to initial the corresponding place on the Miranda advisement acknowledging that he understood his right to remain silent and was willing to waive it. Redgebol wrote his full first name.

Detective Frederickson next tried to explain to Redgebol that anything he said could and would be used against him in court. After Frederickson said this, Abyei, for the first time on the audio recording, pauses for several seconds and then says "Ah . . ." before beginning to translate the Miranda right.

Redgebol's subsequent responses were confusing. He first stated, "After I tell the truth, even if it's used against me, then I make sure that I tell the truth." When Frederickson again cautioned Redgebol about self-incrimination, Redgebol asked, "Is it better that I keep quiet, because I want to tell the truth?" As the conversation continued, Redgebol soon agreed to speak even if his statements could be used against him, explaining, "I want to talk. Even if I go to jail, I prefer to talk." Redgebol then signed the form indicating he understood that right.

Detective Frederickson proceeded to explain briefly Redgebol's right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Stating that it was not a problem and that he understood, Redgebol again signed the Miranda advisement. The detective then tried to explain to Redgebol his right to have a lawyer appointed if he could not afford one, during which time it became clear that Redgebol did not understand the role of a lawyer:

Frederickson: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer [translation], one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish. [translation]

Redgebol: He's asking whether . . . will he be the one to pay for that lawyer?

Frederickson: No, sir.

Redgebol: He say, "Yes, it's okay, that advocate can come and question . . ."

Frederickson: [interrupting] He said what?

Redgebol: The lawyer can come and question him.

Frederickson: No, no, sir, it's me asking questions, not the lawyer [translation]. Do you understand what a lawyer is, Sebet?

Redgebol: Yes, he says he know, "I know who the lawyer is, it's somebody who is my defense."

Frederickson: Correct, it's someone who can protect you and makes sure you understand [translation], makes sure you understand all your rights and what you are saying in response to my questions [translation]. Okay, do you understand, Sebet?

Redgebol: Yes, I understand.

Frederickson: Do you want a lawyer to be with you today?

Redgebol: Anytime he comes.

Frederickson: It's a yes or no question, Sebet.

Redgebol: He is asking, "Is the lawyer coming here, or in the court?"

Frederickson: There's no lawyer right now, but if you want a lawyer, we can get one for you if you want one.

Redgebol: He's saying that "If the lawyer can come now, maybe the lawyer can bail me so that I go home because my children are now starving, they are in the same house where the problem is."

Frederickson: Okay, the function of a lawyer is not to pay to get you out of jail. [translation] That's the responsibility of either yourself, or a family member, or a friend, to provide that money. [translation]

Redgebol: So he's saying, "I'm here, far away, I don't know how to get to my parents or to talk to them."

After Detective Frederickson stated that the conversation was getting off-topic, the officer asked Redgebol directly, "Would you like a lawyer with you, while we talk today, or no?" Redgebol responded, "Yes, he would like a lawyer." The following exchange then occurred:

Frederickson: He would like a lawyer? Okay. [13:44. Frederickson begins to speak again at 13:48] Then I will stop. I forgot to say what time it was when we started this. We began this tape around 5:10 pm on June 23, 2004, and Sebet has just indicated that he would like a lawyer before any questioning. [14:05]

Redgebol: [14:25. Abyei begins to translate Redgebol's statement] He said I don't understand. Will you be questioning me, then after you go, the lawyer comes? Or will both of you be here, you and the lawyer?

After Frederickson reiterated that the lawyer was not here, but "I will question you later, once a lawyer has been appointed for you," Redgebol stated that Frederickson could talk to him now without the lawyer. Pressed for an explanation for his change of mind, Abyei translated, "[H]e thought that you would be talking with him, you would question him, after you are done, then the lawyer will start also, this is what he understood."

Frederickson, without offering any further explanation, then asked again if Redgebol fully understood that he did not have to talk to Frederickson without the presence of a lawyer. Redgebol agreed, and stated that Frederickson could speak to him because "since there is no lawyer now, you can question him, then any time the lawyer comes, then...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • People v. Jimenez
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 16 Octubre 2008
    ...at 1052-54 & n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 2830 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-86 & n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1880; see People v. Redgebol, 184 P.3d 86, 99 (Colo.2008); People v. Martinez, 789 P.2d 420, 422 (Colo. 1990). To open the door to further questioning, the suspect's statements must "......
  • People v. Cardman
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 22 Septiembre 2016
    ...on the totality of the circumstances of the case, ‘including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.’ " People v. Redgebol , 184 P.3d 86, 99 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Martinez , 789 P.2d at 422 ). C. Third–Party Reinitiation¶ 22 Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Col......
  • People v. Kutlak
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2016
    ...reinitiate a conversation, his or her comments must demonstrate a willingness and a desire to discuss the investigation. People v. Redgebol, 184 P.3d 86, 99 (Colo. 2008). The prosecution must prove such a waiver of the right to counsel by clear and convincing evidence. Id.2. Invocation¶ 45 ......
  • Applicant v. Falk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 8 Abril 2015
    ...him. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966); accord Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. ___, 2010 WL 605603, *7 (2010); People v. Redgebol, 184 P.3d 86, 93 (Colo. 2008). If a defendant waives these rights, his statements are admissible against him during the prosecution's case-in-chief. See P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT