Murder Conviction Reversed After Officer Misleads Suspect on Miranda Rights

December 4, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that because law enforcement misled a defendant as to when he had the right to an attorney, his post-Miranda confession at trial was wrongly used against him, requiring reversal of his conviction.

In Florida and throughout the U.S., a suspect must be notified of their Miranda rights before they are subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), these rights include:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law
• The right to an attorney, including to have one present during questioning
• The fact that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

For Miranda purposes, custody occurs when a suspect is deprived of freedom to a degree associated with an arrest – and reasonably would not feel free to 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.

Note: To learn more about custody for Miranda purposes, click here. For more on interrogation, click here.

If someone is advised of their Miranda rights, the smart next move is to exercise them! Invoke your right to remain silent and request an attorney – but do not say anything else. Make sure to say you are remaining silent and want a lawyer out loud, as if you simply sit there quietly, law enforcement can continue questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

Someone who is read their rights may choose to waive them knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (under Miranda). For a waiver to be considered legally valid – allowing the State to use someone’s post-arrest statements (e.g. confessions) against them in court – they must both understand the nature of their rights and the potential consequences of not exercising them.

Critically, officers must not use forbidden tactics such as coaxing, cajoling, trickery, or coercion in order to obtain a Miranda waiver. If someone is misled by police as to what their rights are and this contributes to their decision not to invoke them, this is grounds for a motion to suppress their post-Miranda statements (preventing them from being used at trial).

One of the key rights under Miranda is the right to an attorney – including to have one present during law enforcement questioning (interrogation). But what happens if the police obtain a confession from a suspect after leading them to believe that they do not have the right to an attorney until they are formally charged (actually in court)?

This question was answered in a key Florida case: Murdock v. State, 115 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Even though the defendant was convicted of murder, the 4th DCA nevertheless reversed his conviction because he was misled as to what his Miranda rights were. Let’s break it down.

KEY CASE: Murdock v. State, 115 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)

In Murdock, the defendant (Murdock) was accused of robbery and first-degree murder. He was ultimately found guilty as charged. The State’s evidence against Murdock was not very strong, so key to Murdock’s conviction was the use of his post-Miranda confession to the murder.

Murdock was eventually brought in for an interview after law enforcement began to suspect him of having been the perpetrator. He immediately said that he did not want to talk to the detective (before having heard his Miranda rights), but this was ignored and the detective began speaking with him.

Approximately ten minutes into their conversation, the detective read Murdock his Miranda rights. Immediately upon hearing them, Murdock requested a clarification as to his right to an attorney (“Can you go back to that thing about the lawyer?”). 

The detective reiterated this (“If you cannot afford a lawyer, you’re entitled to the presence and representation of a court appointed lawyer before you make any statement and during any questioning.”). However, when Murdock asked if he could talk to a lawyer before talking to law enforcement, the detective misled him and said he could only do so after he was charged.

Murdock agreed to speak with law enforcement and did so for approximately 30 minutes. He eventually began to panic – offering to implicate others in the crime if he was allowed to go home – and the interview ended. 

Twenty minutes later, the detective attempted to initiate another interview and read Murdock his rights. But Murdock still believed (due to the detective’s misrepresentation) that he only had the right to counsel when he got to court, not during interrogation. 

After hearing a second Miranda warning, Murdock confessed. The statements were played at his trial and he was found guilty – largely based on the contents of the interview with the detective.

On appeal to Florida’s 4th DCA, Murdock argued his Miranda rights were violated. He claimed that because the detective represented to him that he did not have the right to a lawyer until after he was formally charged and brought to court the following day (not true), he spoke with police only because he believed he had no choice to consult one first.

The 4th DCA agreed, reversing the guilty verdict against Murdock at trial. The 4th DCA wrote that Murdock’s statements violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as they were obtained in violation of Miranda:

“In this case, the police obtained Murdock’s statement in violation of Miranda. During the first interview, the detective gave Murdock bad information about when he had the right to consult with a lawyer. Murdock relied on the detective’s misrepresentation before the second interview, indicating that he remembered his rights from the previous interview and offering to stipulate to understanding them.”

“During the second reading of the Miranda rights, the detective did nothing to correct the earlier misinformation. The detective skillfully used interrogation techniques to pressure Murdock and induce him to talk to the police before consulting with a lawyer. By telling Murdock that he was not entitled to an attorney until after he was charged, and by insinuating that by talking to him Murdock could help himself, the detective overcame Murdock’s reluctance to speak. Murdock did not have a full awareness of the rights he was abandoning, such that his waiver of them was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.”

Though the State continued to insist that the second reading of Murdock’s rights cured the error made by the detective before the first interview, the 4th DCA disagreed:

“Simply rereading the rights, without correcting the earlier explanation, prevented Murdock from attaining a ‘full awareness of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the abandonment.’ … Therefore, we reverse to suppress the second interview and remand for a new trial.”

In sum, Murdock v. State, 115 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) is a significant development in Florida case law surrounding how law enforcement must notify a suspect as to their right to an attorney under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Per Murdock, an officer advising someone that they do not have the right to consult a lawyer during police questioning – and will only receive one at their first appearance – is impermissible. 

If a suspect waives their rights relying upon this misrepresentation and confesses post-Miranda to involvement in a crime, their statements cannot be used against them in court. In fact, doing so constitutes reversible error if it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Horne v. State, 57 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2011)

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 or not 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