N.J. judges decline to require that minors consult lawyer before waiving Miranda rights

Requiring minors to speak to an attorney before waiving certain rights — a major juvenile justice system policy shift — is a matter for the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Legislature, the three-judge panel said.

Still, the judges reversed the lower court’s decision to allow prosecutors to use the 16-year-old defendant’s statement to police at trial, noting that court did not consider his “intellectual deficits.” The defendant receives special education services, reads at a fifth-grade level, and suffers other mental conditions that limit his cognitive ability, the appellate panel noted.

The Essex County adolescent, identified in the opinion as M.P., faces several delinquency charges that would be upgraded to first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and other serious crimes if the courts choose to try him as an adult. The charges stem from a December 2019 carjacking that left the victim dead and police say was carried out by M.P. and four others.

The trial court ruled M.P. waived his Miranda rights during a stationhouse interrogation, but the adolescent claims he could not have waived his rights because he did not understand them. He said the statements made during that interrogation, which preceded most of the charges he faces, should not be admitted.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutgers Criminal and Youth Justice Clinic — both of whom joined the case as friends of the court — and the adolescent argued that the judges should create a hard rule requiring minors to consult with an attorney before waiving their rights against self-incrimination.

They said a growing body of scientific evidence shows juveniles hold a poor understanding of Miranda rights and are more susceptible to adults to police interrogation tactics. They noted at least two other states, Washington and California, require minors to speak with an attorney before waiving their rights to silence and counsel.

But the appellate court declined, saying it has no authority to fill such a request.

“Even accepting for the sake of argument the validity and relevance of the scientific studies M.P. relies on, those research findings do not confer upon us authority to substantially rework our state’s juvenile interrogation jurisprudence, and certainly not to overturn New Jersey Supreme Court precedent,” the panel wrote.

It added: “While the rules and principles announced in those precedents are not immutable, it is for our Supreme Court and the Legislature — not an intermediate appellate court — to weigh the benefits and costs of the major juvenile justice system policy shift M.P. proposes.”

They noted the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to adopt a looser standard that would have required an attorney to be appointed for a minor whose parent had a conflict of interest — in the case of fratricide, for instance.

The judges additionally declined to draft revised Miranda warnings that would be more easily understood by minors.

“We believe the task of revising the familiar Miranda warnings to address the inherent differences between adults and juveniles is beyond our authority, especially considering the limited record before us,” the judges wrote.

The judges said officers failed to administer the Miranda warning to M.P. before he consulted with his mother, violating a requirement set by a 2020 New Jersey Supreme Court decision known as State in Interest of A.A.

The appellate panel also suggested police may have illegally recorded a conversation between the adolescent and his mother but did not determine whether information gleaned from that recording should be suppressed because the adolescent did not raise the issue before the lower court or on appeal.

“We nonetheless expect that the attorney general and county prosecutors will review juvenile interrogation ‘protocols’ to ensure compliance with the Wiretap Act while implementing the guidance provided in A.A.,” the judges wrote.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com. Follow New Jersey Monitor on Facebook and Twitter.