North FL’s Highest Court Upholds Miranda Waiver in Non-Native Language

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights in Spanish, when his native language was Mayan Mam, was valid because he clearly was able to understand his rights.

In Florida, Miranda rights are a key constitutional protection for individuals subject to custodial interrogation by law enforcement.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966) ruling, these are:

• The right to remain silent
• The fact that anything someone says 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 someone cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them

If someone is read their Miranda rights, the smart next move is to ZIP IT and ask for an attorney! Say that you will be remaining silent and request counsel out loud – as if you simply sit quietly without verbally exercising your rights, the police can continue questioning you! Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

It is commonly believed that Miranda must be read any time someone has an encounter with law enforcement. However, this is untrue. Someone must only be notified of their Miranda rights if they are subject to custodial interrogation (e.g. after they are in custody but before interrogation begins). To learn more, click here.

If someone is read their Miranda rights, they have two choices (one of them is clearly better than the other). These are:

• Exercising the right to remain silent/asking for an attorney (DO THIS!)
• Waiving their Miranda rights (e.g. a suspect signing a Miranda form/verbally indicating understanding of their rights) and agreeing to speak with police

In the event that someone does speak with law enforcement post-Miranda, their statements are not automatically admissible against them in a court of law (e.g. at trial). Moore v. State, 798 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)

This is because their waiver (e.g. agreement to speak after being read their rights) must have been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. This means a suspect must have had an understanding of their Miranda rights (e.g. realized what they were) and the potential consequences of failing to exercise them (e.g. potentially incriminating statements being used against them).

Note: To learn more about when a Miranda waiver is (and is not) considered knowing, intelligent and voluntary in Florida, click here.

If someone’s Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the proper remedy is the suppression of their post-warning statements. This means that any statements (including a confession) that a suspect made during custodial interrogation become inadmissible against them in court (e.g. the jury will not hear them). To learn more, click here.

Examples of situations where a Miranda waiver is likely to be considered invalid by courts (e.g. not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary) include:

• Law enforcement omits key Miranda rights (e.g. does not tell a suspect they have a right to an attorney)
• Law enforcement threatens or coerces someone with the intent of making them waive their rights/talk about the alleged crime
• Law enforcement “minimizes” Miranda (e.g. says that it’s “just a formality” and “not a big deal,” leading a suspect not to exercise their rights)
• Law enforcement reads Miranda in a language that the defendant can’t comprehend sufficiently to understand their rights and the consequences of waiving them

The last of these is a particularly intriguing legal issue. While Florida’s courts have been clear that reading Miranda in a language that a suspect doesn’t speak violates their rights, some cases are “closer calls.” Let’s take a look at one such case – Martin-Godinez v. State, 225 So.3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) – and what it means for your Miranda rights in Florida.

KEY CASE: Martin-Godinez v. State, 225 So.3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 

In Martin-Godinez, the defendant (Martin-Godinez) was accused of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation. He was ultimately convicted after his post-Miranda warning confession was used against him at trial (played for the jury).

Before trial, Martin-Godinez moved to suppress his post-arrest statements on the grounds that his Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Martin-Godinez noted that he was read his rights in Spanish. However, Mayan Mam (a local Guatemalan dialect of Mayan) – not Spanish – was his native language.

Because he was not notified of his rights in Mayan Mam, Martin-Godinez claimed that he did not sufficiently understand his Miranda rights and the consequences of waiving them before he spoke with law enforcement.

The State responded to Martin-Godinez’s claims by pointing out he never requested a Mayan Mam interpreter, never indicated he could not understand Spanish, and spoke Spanish during his post-Miranda interrogation. The trial judge denied Martin-Godinez’s motion to suppress – resulting in his confession being used against him at trial.

On appeal, Martin-Godinez asserted that due to his limited education and the fact that he was not Mirandized (e.g. read his Miranda rights) in his native language, his confession could not be said to have been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. However, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed his convictions.

The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court) began by noting that the State was required to prove the validity of Martin-Godinez’s waiver by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, writing:

“In order to waive Miranda rights, the waiver must be made “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Murdock v. State, 115 So.3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citations omitted). The burden of proving voluntariness is “heavier” when a defendant claims a language barrier, but the standard of proof remains the same. Balthazar, 549 So.2d at 662. The appellant does not claim that his waiver was the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances must show that his waiver was made with a full awareness of the rights he was abandoning and the consequences of the abandonment.”

The 1st DCA found that the trial judge reviewed the evidence in the record (including the tape of the interrogation) and reasonably concluded that Martin-Godinez understood his rights before voluntarily waiving them:

“The trial judge’s finding that the appellant understood Spanish well enough to freely and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights with a full understanding of what he was doing is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The appellant was able to sufficiently answer the detective’s background questions in Spanish, and he acknowledged he understood the rights he was waiving. The appellant argues that the trial judge failed to consider factors beyond his language barrier; however, her ruling was made upon consideration of the “totality of the circumstances.””

“While the appellant did state he only had a second-grade education, there was no indication that he had anything but average intelligence. His answers to the detective’s questions indicated he had a sufficient understanding of the judicial system. For example, when asked if he knew what a lawyer was, the appellant stated it was someone to advocate for him. After the appellant affirmatively waived his rights, the interview continued in Spanish wherein the appellant provided a detailed account of his actions against his niece. Accordingly, the trial judge appropriately denied the motion to suppress, allowing for the admission of the appellant’s incriminating statements.”

As there was no evidence Martin-Godinez did not understand his rights, and Martin-Godinez was able to converse comfortably in Spanish with the detective (as well as answer his questions), the 1st DCA found the majority of the evidence indicated his waiver was legally valid (despite the Miranda reading not having been in his native language).

In sum, Martin-Godinez v. State, 225 So.3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) is a major development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding the voluntariness of Miranda waivers for suspects who are read their rights in their non-native tongue. The 1st DCA found that:

• Martin-Godinez spoke Spanish in addition to Mayan Mam
• Though Spanish was not his native language, Martin-Godinez spoke it fluently enough to where he could answer the interrogating detective’s questions designed to evaluate his understanding of the Miranda waiver (e.g. “what is a lawyer”)
• Because there was no indication that Martin-Godinez did not validly waive his rights, his convictions were affirmed – as his post-Miranda confession did not require suppression

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Martin-Godinez v. State, 225 So.3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), as it provides an intriguing legal analysis that can be used to frame a defendant’s motion to suppress if they were read Miranda in a non-native language.

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 criminal 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