Florida District Court of Appeals Makes Recent Ruling on Miranda Rights

September 17, 2021 Criminal Defense


In 2015, Appellant Whatdly Petit was found to have shot a nightclub patron beyond a reasonable doubt, securing his conviction of first-degree murder and resulting in a life sentence. He recently appealed his sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, raising five issues and arguing that the trial court either abused its discretion or reversibly committed an error. After considering Petit’s claims, the court affirmed on all issues.

Facts & Procedural History

In this case, Petit was charged with one count of first-degree murder. His counsel filed a motion to suppress a statement Petit had made to a Broward County Sheriff’s Office detective during an interview that was recorded. He specifically wanted to suppress any statements that related to his whereabouts on the night of the crime.

When a hearing on the motion to suppress occurred, the trial court played a recording of the challenged interview, which stated in pertinent part:

            The Detective:

“And then this other thing is not really a right. It’s just knowing [and] understanding your rights, do you want to speak to me and have a conversation about why you’re here?”


                        “You said what?”

            The Detective:

“Knowing and understand[ing] your rights, do you want to talk to me and have a conversation about why you’re here, why I got an arrest warrant for you? You gotta say it.”



Physical cues left out of the transcript, but included in the recording, include Petit placing his hands together and shrugging with no verbal response when the detective asked Petit if he wanted to have a conversation about why he was being interrogated in a police station. Then, the detective asked Petit “Yes?” and then said “You gotta say it,” after which Petit immediately said “Yes.”

This forms the basis of Petit’s argument. He claims that he had given an “equivocal answer and had not knowingly and intelligently waived his” rights under Miranda v. Arizona (you can read more about Miranda rights here). The State responded by arguing that Petit’s hesitation in answering the detective’s question was really a pause Petit did deliberately in order to reflect thoughtfully on the gravity of his situation.

The trial court concluded that they would not suppress the recorded interview. The trial court evaluated the context of the recorded interview and made sure to note that Petit had invoked his Miranda rights three-and-a-half minutes after the statements outlined above by asking for an attorney.

After this, the case proceeded to jury trial. During trial, the State introduced surveillance footage from outside and inside of the nightclub as their primary evidence. The footage portraying the events that occurred outside, namely the victim’s death, was of poor quality, but the State asserted that the murderer could be identified “through his movements from camera-to-camera.” Therefore, after two witnesses identified Petit from the video capturing the inside of the nightclub, and a detective’s narration of the events in the recorded footage, the State claimed Petit was the murderer. The State also brought forth testimony about Petit’s phone record, which placed Petit around the area of the nightclub on the night in question.

After the presentation of the evidence, Petit’s counsel moved twice for a judgment of acquittal, and the trial court denied both of counsel’s motions. Later, the jury found Petit guilty of first-degree murder.

Petit then filed a “Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Motion for New Trial.” At his sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Petit’s motions and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. Petit then appealed that decision, bringing forth various issues on appeal.

The Issues on Appeal and Analysis

The Motion to Suppress

The Court stated that a voluntary Miranda waiver must be proven by the State demonstrating that “the waiver was the result of free choice on the part of the defendant and not the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception, and the waiver was made with a full awareness of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the abandonment.” They further revealed that “only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that Miranda rights have been waived.” So, if a defendant is being interrogated about a Miranda waiver and they give an ambiguous or equivocal answer, then the law enforcement officer must inquire further before initiating further interrogation.

The Court found that here, Petit gave a non-verbal response when he was initially asked if he wanted to talk to the detective, but then unequivocally said “Yes.” when the detective double checked. The Court also disagreed with Petit’s argument that the detective saying “You gotta say it” made the admission of any statement after inadmissible since Petit ultimately agreed to speak with the detective when he said “Yes[,]” so the detective did not have to inquire further.

The Court additionally found that Petit’s hesitation in the recorded interview could be seen as equivocal, but based on the totality of the circumstances, it was clear that the detective’s words and questions were not directives or coercive, but rather a reminder to Petit that he needed to answer with either a “Yes” or “No.”

The Motions of Judgment of Acquittal

The Court found that there existed competent and substantial evidence to support Petit’s conviction for first-degree murder. The Court found these facts supported his conviction specifically

  1. A security officer testified that Petit was there on the night of the murder, and he remembered Petit because of his unique shoes (Gucci slide);
  2. The security officer positively identified Petit on the security footage capturing outside of the nightclub before the murder;
  3. Petit’s cousin also positively identified Petit from the security footage capturing the inside of the club;
  4. Petit’s cousin identified the murderer’s white car and what appeared to be the same car which she had seen Petit driving the next day at a family event;
  5. Cellphone records revealed that Petit was in the general vicinity of the nightclub where the murder happened, and not at a Pompano Beach nightclub he testified to visiting on the night in question during his post-Miranda

The Court found that, based on all of the above evidence, combined the surveillance footage itself, a rational jury or judge could find the elements of first-degree murder existed beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court’s Decision

The Fourth District Court of Appeals ultimately decided that the totality of the circumstances clearly show that the detective’s statement “You gotta say it” directed at Petit was not a directive and that Petit sufficiently understood his Miranda rights. Therefore, the trial court did not reversibly err or abuse its discretion in denying Petit’s motion to suppress the recorded interview. Furthermore, since competent, substantial evidence supports Petit’s conviction, the Court also held that the trial court did not reversibly err or abuse its discretion in denying Petit’s motions for judgment of acquittal.

Hire a Tallahassee Criminal Defense Attorney

The case clearly illustrates the need for an educated Tallahassee criminal defense attorney that can advise their client of the dangers of not knowing enough about Miranda rights and waiver. If you or a loved one are ever interrogated by law enforcement, it is vital that you clearly and unambiguously invoke your Miranda rights. If you do not invoke these rights clearly and unambiguously, this case illustrates that the totality of the circumstances can support that you or a loved one validly waived Miranda’s protections. Don Pumphrey and the members of the legal team at Pumphrey Law Firm are well-versed in Miranda rights, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that contain Miranda’s principles. Call (850) 681–7777 or send an online message to discuss your rights during an open and free consultation with a defense attorney in our legal team.

For even more information on the right to remain silent, please visit our other Miranda-related blog posts:

This article was written by Gabi D’Esposito

Back to Top