Miranda warnings valid even if the right to an attorney is not said, NM Justices rule

The front door of the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Fe in Feb. 2022. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)

In a ruling Monday, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the challenges of two defendants who said county sheriffs’ offices violated their Miranda rights. Specifically, notifying them of their right to an attorney. The Justices ruled that the way detectives phrased the warnings was sufficient.

Anyone who’s watched cop shows like Law and Order has a sense of what Miranda warnings sound like.

“You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law,” one episode phrased it. “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at no cost.”

The state Supreme Court’s ruling stems from the appeals of two defendants who admitted to sexually abusing children during questioning without attorneys present. Both had confirmed at the time they understood their rights.

According to court documents , a detective with the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office warned Howard Atencio that he had, “A right to a lawyer.” Atencio argued that did not make it clear that he could have had legal counsel both ahead of and while being questioned.

In a separate and later consolidated case, a detective with the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office warned Zaenan Chiaramonte that he had, “The right to an attorney and have him/her present while you are being questioned.” He argued that phrasing suggested, “The right did not apply before questioning.”

In a unanimous decision , the state’s high court ruled that, while the Miranda right “includes the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning,” the warning does not have to explicitly say so.

The court wrote that those specifics are, “Adequately conveyed simply by informing a suspect of the right to counsel.”

Atencio had also filed a cross-appeal about whether there was enough evidence to support his convictions. The court ruled there was. Meanwhile, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts, Chiaramonte’s criminal case is still pending.

This article first appeared at KUNM . It is republished here with permission.