Are Miranda Warnings Required with a Jailhouse Informant?

Eight months later, Rodriguez was in jail on an unrelated matter and police placed an informant in his holding cell. The informant dressed and acted like an inmate. Rodriguez was not read his Miranda rights. The two then began to talk and Rodriguez confided that he “did a shooting . . . attempted murder.” This was not as an explanation, however, of why he was in jail, but Rodriguez mentioned this to his cellmate.

A detective then entered the cell and advised Rodriguez that he would be charged with attempted murder. The informant at this point did not let on that he was a cop. Instead, being informed of the anticipated charge led to more discussion between Rodriguez and the informant, all of which was recorded. The talking lasted one hour and forty minutes.

Police then pulled Rodriguez out of the cell, Mirandized him, asked him some questions and returned him to the cell with the informant.

The informant asked Rodriguez, “What happened, fool?” Rodriguez replied, “Fuckin, uh, they know everything fool.” After talking some more, Rodriguez said to the informant, “Look, here’s what happened. I can have a little bit of trust in you.” Rodriguez then told the informant the details of the shooting. This conversation lasted twenty minutes.

At trial, Rodriguez tried to exclude his conversations with the informant. The trial court judge downtown on this case, Mark S. Arnold, denied the motion (our office knows Mark Arnold quite well from his prior time on the bench in Torrance. We regard him as an exceptionally good judge). The prosecution then played the recording for the jury.

The jury convicted Rodriguez of attempted murder and other crimes. Judge Arnold sentenced Rodriguez to nine years for the attempted murder, then ten more years for the crime being for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)(C)), then 25 years to life for the Penal Code § 12022.53(d) gun enhancement.

Rodriguez appealed the verdict and the sentence on several grounds, but this article will just consider the Miranda issue. Rodriguez filed his appeal with the Second Appellate District in Downtown Los Angeles.

The Second Appellate District denied the appeal and affirmed Judge Arnold’s ruling to admit the recorded conversation. The appellate court rejected Rodriguez’s claim that Miranda was required because he felt coerced to talk to the cell mate because the cell mate was older (9 years older) and Rodriguez was trapped in the cell, so he had to talk to him. The appellate court disagreed quite strongly, noting that the two seemed to be quite at ease talking and noted Arnold’s comment that “when they split up, they were new best friends. There was not one iota of evidence that Mr. Rodriguez was pressured.” The trial court found and the appellate court agreed that Rodriguez’s confession was voluntary.

We present this summary to exemplify that Miranda only applies if one is in some type of prolonged detention and not free to leave, but more importantly, the suspect must know he or she is speaking to a police officer. It must be a “police-dominated” atmosphere, which is not present when one is in a jail cell talking to someone else who appears to be a crime suspect as well.

The citation for the Second Appellate District Court ruling discussed above is People v. Giovanny Rodriguez (2d App. Dist., 2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 194.

For more information about Miranda issues, please click on the following articles:

1. The Police Did Not Read Me My Miranda Rights – Will My Case Be Dismissed?
2. Defendant’s Confession to Arson After Nine Hours of Police Questioning Is Admissible Despite No Miranda Warnings Because Defendant Always Free to Leave
3. Four Facts About Miranda Rights That Everyone Should Know