How Inadequate Miranda Warnings Led to a Florida Murder Conviction Being Reversed

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

A major Florida court reversed a murder conviction because the Miranda warnings that the defendant received were “constitutionally inadequate.” This blog will discuss why.

In Florida, a suspect in a criminal case must be read their Miranda rights before they are subject to custodial interrogation. These include:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything can and will be used against you in court
• The right to an attorney, including to have one during police questioning
• The fact that if someone cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

Someone is in custody for Miranda purposes when a reasonable person in their same position would not feel free to terminate police questioning and leave. Interrogation occurs when law enforcement engages in questioning (or its functional equivalent) that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.

For more on what constitutes custody and interrogation – requiring police to notify a suspect of their Miranda rights – click here.

If someone agrees to speak with law enforcement without an attorney after being read their rights, they must “waive” Miranda knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. In other words, they must understand the nature of the rights, as well as the potential consequences of not exercising them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)

If a person is taken into police custody and notified of their Miranda rights prior to interrogation, the best thing they can do is exercise their rights. Tell law enforcement you will be remaining silent and request an attorney. Say this clearly and out loud, as if you simply sit there quietly, the police can keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

When someone agrees to speak with police after validly waiving their Miranda rights, anything they say can and will be used against them in court. This is exactly why they should not speak without an attorney present. Police officers are specifically trained to elicit incriminating details from suspects while making it seem like a casual conversation.

Though courts have held that there isn’t a particular “script” that police must follow in order for a Miranda warning to be considered valid, individuals must be properly informed of their rights before they can validly waive them and speak with law enforcement. This means every Miranda right must be communicated by the police to the suspect before interrogation.

If law enforcement leaves out one or more of these rights (e.g. omits the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney), or fails to read a Miranda warning at all when required, any post-arrest statements made by a suspect to the police cannot be used against them at trial. This includes if someone confesses to a serious crime.

Rarely will police fail to read Miranda altogether or only provide a partial warning (e.g. leaving out one right while reading the others). However, there are “edge cases” where officers did read a suspect their rights but may have not done so in a sufficiently clear manner. As a result, a suspect may have been misled as to the nature of their rights.

A great example of this occurred in a landmark case: West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Let’s break down West, which involved the reversal of a first-degree murder conviction for inadequate Miranda warnings, and its significance for how Miranda warnings must be read in Florida.

Major Case: West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

In West, the defendant (Nnneka West) was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. She was taken to a police station where she was interrogated. Prior to this taking place, however, an officer read her a Miranda warning.

The Miranda warning read to West notified her of all of the following:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything she said could be used against her in court
• The right to consult with an attorney before questioning
• The fact that if she could not afford an attorney, one would be provided for her

The officer failed to inform West that she had the right to an attorney during (not just before) police questioning, and did not mention that she could end the interrogation at any time by invoking her rights once it was underway. West then signed a Miranda waiver and confessed to the murder shortly thereafter.

West’s statements were used against her at trial and she was convicted. On appeal, West argued that her Miranda waiver was inadequate. West noted that she had an IQ of 61, and thus, was less likely to be able to make “inferences” about her other rights or validly exercise them – especially given that she was never told she could stop the questioning at any time.

West also asserted that the Miranda warning she received was deficient, as the officer failed to inform her of key rights, including the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning. According to West, the officer’s failure to communicate this fact made her confession legally invalid, rendering it inadmissible in court.

The 4th District Court of Appeal (Southwest Florida) agreed with West and reversed the guilty verdict reached by the jury, remanding the case for a new trial. The majority wrote:

“Without addressing the facial inadequacy of the warning, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that under the totality of the circumstances appellant understood her rights and knowingly and intelligently waived them.”

“The problem with the trial court’s finding is that it overlooks that appellant was not informed that she was entitled to have counsel present during interrogation or that she could stop the interrogation at any time. Nor did the state produce evidence that appellant knew this and knowingly waived these rights. Her confession should accordingly have been suppressed.”

This was a significant decision, as it clarified that even though a Miranda warning does not have to be read from a script, it must adequately apprise a suspect of all of their rights. Otherwise, they will be unable to develop a full understanding of what those rights are and the potential consequences of waiving them.

Judge Gross of the 4th DCA authored a concurring opinion elaborating on the legal support for the majority’s finding. He noted:

“Miranda explicitly holds that as ‘an absolute prerequisite to interrogation,’ a suspect in custody “must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.”

“Similar to the warning on the right to remain silent, the Supreme Court chose the requirement of a specific warning on the right to counsel as a ‘clearcut fact,’ to avoid ‘[a]ssessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, [which] can never be more than speculation.’’’

Judge Gross included some of the specific language from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) to support the court’s findings. Because the interrogating officer only told West that she had a right to consult an attorney prior to questioning (and failed to tell her she also had a right to one during questioning itself), West’s murder conviction could not stand.

It is worth noting that not all Miranda violations (including erroneous admission of a confession at trial) will lead to a reversal of a guilty verdict. Courts perform a “harmless error” analysis on this issue – so if the admission of the defendant’s post-arrest statements are certain to have not impacted the verdict (due to overwhelming additional evidence), a new trial is not required.

But in a high percentage of cases where someone’s confession is improperly used against them at trial, appellate courts in Florida will reverse the verdict. This is because a confession is often at the center of the State’s case – or at least, one of the most powerful pieces of evidence. Unless a confession is just “icing on the cake,” courts are likely to require a new trial.

In sum, West v. State, 876 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) was and continues to be a significant development in Florida’s Miranda case law. It makes clear that any conviction, no matter how serious, can be reversed due to a Miranda violation if the erroneous admission of post-Miranda statements was not “harmless error.”

Police must notify someone that they have the absolute right to remain silent, and have the right to consult an attorney during (not just before) interrogation. Otherwise, this can lead to a guilty verdict in Florida – including for murder – being reversed. 

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving a Miranda waiver that was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, it is CRITICAL to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share