Page 37 - TPA Journal March April 2023

information not found earlier in the recordings failure to scrupulously honor his right to cut off
was Appellant’s admission that he knew the gun questioning during the first statement extended to
was a .45. Even assuming that this part of his the second statement. We addressed and rejected
statement was inadmissible, any error was that contention under the “Honoring the Right to
harmless for reasons we have stated earlier. Silence” subsection of this opinion. Moreover, the
sequence of events shows that Appellant was able
Appellant contends that his waiver of his rights to successfully terminate the first interview by
was not voluntary because he was subject to asserting his right to cut off questioning a second
food and sleep deprivation, physical violence by time. At worst, that sequence would have
Border Patrol agents who arrested him, lack of conveyed that Appellant could have his right to
care for his physical injury, and threats against cut off questioning honored if he persistently
him. These arguments are the same arguments he asserted it. Consequently, we have no reason to
made for finding the recorded statements to be think that he did not understand that he did not
coerced, and the same reasons for rejecting them have to agree to the second interview.
in connection with that claim apply here. He also
claims that officers told him that they could not go Appellant also claims that Ranger Vela
to the District Attorney without information from undermined the waiver with respect to the second
him, that he signed the Miranda waiver because recorded interview by saying, contrary to the
he thought he had to, and that threats had been Miranda and Article 38.22 warnings, “I am not
made against his family. These additional saying this is going to affect you or not; it may or
arguments depend on statements made by may not affect you in court.” Saying that a
Appellant—during the suppression hearing or in confession can be used “for or against you” is an
the recorded interviews—which the trial court was improper warning that does not comply with
free to disbelieve. Given the findings, it is clear Article 38.22. Appellant does not dispute that all
that the trial court did not in fact believe these of the warnings given at the beginning of each
statements from Appellant. recorded interview complied with Article 38.22.
Rather, he claims that Ranger Vela’s statement
Appellant also contends that he did not understand here was an additional statement in the middle of
that, by signing the waiver, he was the first interview that was contrary to the Article
waiving his right to remain silent and his right to 38.22 warning that a statement may be used
a lawyer, and he claims that he did not understand against the defendant.97 Ranger Vela’s “may or
specific terms in Spanish read out to him from the may not affect you in court” statement, however,
Miranda waiver. These arguments also depend on was talking about the Rangers telling the
Appellant’s testimony, which the trial court was prosecutor whether or not the defendant was
free to disbelieve and did disbelieve, given the honest during the interview. Ranger Vela was
findings. Moreover, Appellant indicated on the saying that such a statement by the Rangers to the
first recording that he understood his rights, and prosecutor “may or may not affect” Appellant in
on the second recording, he said that the warnings court. This in no way undermined the Article
need not be re-read because he understood them. 38.22 warning that whatever Appellant said might
Appellant claims that Ranger Vela undermined the be used against him.
validity of his waiver of rights with
respect to the second recorded interview when he But even if the waiver as to the second
disregarded Appellant’s invocation of his right to interrogation were rendered invalid for the reasons
cut off questioning. This argument is really just Appellant suggests, any error in admitting the
another way of stating his contention that the second recorded statement was harmless for

March-April 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 33