Mack v. State

A suspect will be considered to have "initiated" renewed contact with law enforcement authorities so as to permit further interrogation only if the renewed contact was not the product of past police interrogation conducted in violation of the suspect's previously-invoked right to remain silent.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Artenimus Rayshun Mack has been charged with murder and related offenses in connection with an October 2012 shooting in Baldwin County. In the course of his prosecution, Mack moved to suppress various statements he made to police investigators following his arrest, contending, inter alia, that they were obtained in violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Following a hearing, at which the State adduced video recordings of Mack’s statements and the testimony of investigators to whom these statements were made, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court concluded, in pertinent part, that Mack had not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and that he had “purposefully reinitiated” the communications with investigators in which he ultimately confessed to shooting the victim. We granted Mack’s application for interlocutory appeal, and we now conclude that these findings were in error. Accordingly, we reverse.

On November 1, 2012, Mack was arrested and taken to the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office. At approximately 12:10 p.m., after an officer advised him of his Miranda1 rights, Mack executed a written waiver form, and investigators began questioning him. During the approximately two hours that followed, Mack told investigators his version of the events leading up to and culminating in the shooting. Mack admitted being present but maintained that the shooter was an unidentified third party who, in the course of purchasing marijuana from Mack and the victim, unexpectedly produced a gun and fired at the victim.

Mack v. State

A suspect will be considered to have "initiated" renewed contact with law enforcement authorities so as to permit further interrogation only if the renewed contact was not the product of past police interrogation conducted in violation of the suspect's previously-invoked right to remain silent.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report