Tallahassee’s Highest Court REVERSES Murder Conviction Based On Miranda Violation

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal reversed a defendant’s murder conviction after officers continued to custodially interrogate him despite the fact that he invoked his Miranda rights.

CASE: Wilder v. State, 40 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)

Charge(s): First-Degree Murder, Attempted Second-Degree Murder, Petit Theft

Outcome: Convictions REVERSED, as Wilder’s confession was impermissibly obtained from law enforcement in violation of his Miranda rights.

Miranda Rights in Florida

In Florida and throughout the U.S., someone must be advised of their Miranda rights before they are subject to CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION by law enforcement. These rights, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision, include:

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

If someone is notified of their Miranda rights by law enforcement, the SMART next move is to exercise them! Tell the police you will be remaining silent and request an attorney. If you simply sit there quietly and do not say OUT LOUD you are remaining silent/want an attorney, officers can keep questioning you. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)

A common but erroneous belief about Miranda rights is that law enforcement must notify you of your rights the second you are placed in handcuffs. But this is NOT true. Two conditions must be satisfied for law enforcement to be required to read someone their Miranda rights – they must be in CUSTODY, and officers must intend to INTERROGATE the suspect.

But what do these terms – “custody” and “interrogation” – mean for Miranda purposes? The first of these, custody, occurs when both of the following are true:

• The suspect must have their freedom of movement constrained in a manner consistent with a formal arrest (this includes a formal arrest)
• A reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave (J.G. v. State, 883 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004))

It is important to note that law enforcement DOES NOT have to read a person their rights if they are conducting a simple traffic stop (e.g. pulling someone over for a minor infraction). Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)

Interrogation is defined as questioning or its “functional equivalent” that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. This may include accusing them of something nefarious or confronting them with evidence. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). For more on interrogation, click here.

In the event that someone is read their Miranda rights, they can do either of the following:

• Invoke their rights immediately, requiring that law enforcement cease questioning and provide them an attorney (DO THIS!)
• Waive their rights and agree to speak with law enforcement (e.g. subject themselves to interrogation) without an attorney present

If a person waives their Miranda rights at the commencement of police interrogation, there are a couple of important things to know. The first of these is that it is not a PERMANENT waiver. If someone agrees to speak with law enforcement without an attorney present, they may still ask for an attorney/exercise the right to remain silent at any time. For more, click here.

However, it is important to note that if someone chooses to invoke their rights after waiving them initially, their invocation must be UNAMBIGUOUS and UNEQUIVOCAL. Washington v. State, 253 So.3d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). For example, the following statements will NOT require law enforcement to cease interrogation/get the suspect a lawyer:

• “I think I may want an attorney”
• “It may be best if I don’t talk any more about this topic”
• “I’m thinking about lawyering up”

All of these statements are “equivocal” (e.g. the suspect’s intent is not entirely clear, as they are deliberating whether or not to exercise their rights). Thus, AFTER an initial waiver has occurred, these would be insufficient to end interrogation. Be clear and firm that you want to exercise your rights. For more, click here.

The second thing to know about waiving your Miranda rights is the fact that any waiver must be KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY. Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), this means BOTH of the following must have been true at the time of a waiver:

• The defendant understood the nature of their rights (e.g. what they were)
• The defendant understood the potential consequences of giving them up (e.g. that their statements could/would be used against them in court)

Examples of situations where officers act in a manner rendering a Miranda rights waiver (and subsequent confession) involuntary include:

• Law enforcement does not read someone their full Miranda rights (e.g. omits one or more rights when notifying a suspect of them, such as not disclosing the right to an attorney)
• Law enforcement fails to read someone their rights at all before custodially interrogating them (Evans v. State, 911 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005))
• Law enforcement reads someone their rights in a language that is not their own (e.g. reads a clear Spanish-speaker their rights in English)
• Law enforcement uses threats, coercion, or trickery to get someone to waive their rights – even once they have chosen to exercise them
• Law enforcement minimizes Miranda (e.g. “This is all just a formality…”)

If someone believes their Miranda waiver was NOT knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, an experienced, aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney can file a MOTION TO SUPPRESS on their behalf. 

In the event that such a motion is granted, someone’s post-Miranda statements (or statements that occurred after Miranda SHOULD HAVE been read) are inadmissible in a court of law against the defendant. This means the jury will never hear them, which can influence the trajectory of a trial.

It is important to note that at ANY point during interrogation (either before or after a Miranda rights waiver), a suspect may ask a “prefatory question” concerning their rights (e.g. what they are/when they can be exercised). Examples may include:

• “Can I have a lawyer now?”
• “Can I stop talking to you now?”
• “When do my rights begin to apply?”

If a prefatory question is asked, law enforcement must provide a simple, straightforward answer before interrogation continues. Law enforcement’s FAILURE to do so may result in a conviction being reversed. Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)

This leads us to a major Miranda rights case decided by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court). There, a defendant was custodially interrogated about a murder case while he was in jail on unrelated charges. During questioning, he INVOKED his right to counsel – stating he did not want to talk without an attorney. 

Police initially complied with their obligation under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) to immediately cease questioning/not continue interrogation without an attorney present. However, shortly thereafter, the police reinitiated contact with the defendant and proceeded to again ask him about the case WITHOUT proving him an attorney. The defendant eventually confessed.

Though the defendant filed a motion to suppress on the basis that he was re-interrogated after he invoked his right to counsel, the trial judge DENIED this. The defendant was ultimately tried, his confession was used against him, and he was convicted.

On appeal, the defendant argued to the 1st DCA that his convictions required REVERSAL due to the Miranda rights violation, and the fact that the use of his confession against him at trial may have influenced the jury’s verdict. The 1st DCA AGREED and REVERSED his convictions.

Let’s take a look at this seminal case – Wilder v. State, 40 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida concerned about their Miranda rights.

KEY CASE: Wilder v. State, 40 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)

In Wilder, the defendant (Wilder) was charged with first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, and petit theft. He was convicted on all counts. At trial and at the hearing on his motion to suppress, the following was revealed:

• While in jail on other charges, Wilder was questioned by police about the alleged murder
• During interrogation, Wilder explicitly asked for an attorney, stating that he did not want to talk to law enforcement without one present
• Police initially stopped interrogation – but later came back and reinitiated interrogation without providing Wilder an attorney
• Officers read Wilder his rights again, and Wilder agreed to speak, then confessed

Wilder filed a motion to suppress, arguing that pursuant to Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), law enforcement COULD NOT permissibly reinitiate interrogation without calling an attorney (since Wilder asked for one). Thus, his confession required suppression.

However, the State argued that the readministration of Wilder’s Miranda rights before the second interrogation “cured” any potential violation of Edwards. The judge AGREED with the State and denied Wilder’s motion. His confession was ultimately used against him at his trial (shown to the jury) and he was convicted.

On appeal, Wilder again cited Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), reiterating his argument that his Miranda rights were violated by law enforcement’s reinitiation of interrogation after he asked for a lawyer. Florida’s 1st DCA AGREED with him and REVERSED his convictions. The 1st DCA began by discussing Edwards:

“The rationale of Edwards is that once a suspect indicates that “he is not capable of undergoing [custodial] questioning without advice of counsel,” “any subsequent waiver that has come at the authorities’ behest, and not at the suspect’s own instigation, is itself the product of the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ and not the purely voluntary choice of the suspect.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). Under this rule, a voluntary Miranda waiver is sufficient at the time of an initial attempted interrogation to protect a suspect’s right to have counsel present, but it is not sufficient at the time of subsequent attempts if the suspect initially requested the presence of counsel. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct. at 1219–20. In the present case, after Mr. Wilder asked for a lawyer in the course of custodial interrogation, his interrogator stopped the questioning, just as Miranda required. But, rather than facilitating—or at least awaiting—an opportunity for him to consult with counsel, the police shortly thereafter reinitiated interrogation. This produced the statements introduced over objection at trial, in violation of the requirements of Edwards.”

Because WILDER did not reinitiate contact with law enforcement – law enforcement reinitiated contact with him – his conviction was required reversal because the judge erroneously denied the motion to suppress:

“Finally, the prosecution did not show that appellant initiated further contact with the police or otherwise waived his right to counsel, after invoking it. See generally Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484–85, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (“We further hold that an accused …, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”). There was no evidence that appellant initiated further contact with the police on November 4, 2005, when he was read his Miranda rights before being allowed to talk to his brother. Detective Warkentien testified that the appellant did not initiate contact with him prior to the November 7, 2007, interrogation which resulted in the statements at issue. … The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The State has failed to establish that the erroneous admission of the statements did not contribute to the verdict. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.”

In sum, Wilder v. State, 40 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding Miranda rights. Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) held that:

• Wilder explicitly asked for a lawyer after he was notified of his Miranda rights, and law enforcement initially honored the request
• Shortly after ending interrogation, officers came back to continue interrogating Wilder
• This was not permitted without providing Wilder an attorney
• The only exception to this rule was if WILDER was the one to reinitiate contact with law enforcement voluntarily
• However, this did not occur – the police decided to continue questioning Wilder
• The fact that they re-Mirandized Wilder did not cure the violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981),
• As his confession was used against him at trial, Wilder’s convictions required reversal – and a new trial occurred

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Wilder v. State, 40 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), as it is a DEFENSE-FRIENDLY case on the issue of law enforcement reinitiating (or continuing) interrogation after a suspect asks for an attorney.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving a Miranda rights 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