En este episodio, el Lcdo. Miguel A. Rodríguez Ramos discute la Resolución del Tribunal Supremo en Pueblo v. Bonilla Rosado, 2022 TSPR 147, donde el Tribunal proveyó No Ha Lugar al recurso de Certiorari presentado por el Sr. José Bonilla Rosado, en el que solicitaba se revocara la determinación del foro apelativo intermedio en la que revocó la Resolución emitida por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia. En particular, el licenciado Rodríguez Ramos analiza el Voto particular disidente del Juez Asociado Estrella Martínez, al cual se unió la Jueza Presidenta Oronoz Rodríguez.
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297-298 (1990):
“Miranda forbids coercion, not mere strategic deception by taking advantage of a suspect's misplaced trust in one he supposes to be a fellow prisoner. As we recognized in Miranda: “[C]onfessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” 384 U.S., at 478, 86 S.Ct., at 1629. Ploys to mislead a suspect or lull him into a false sense of security that do not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda 's concerns. Cf. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495–496, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) (where police fail to inform suspect of attorney's efforts to reach him, neither Miranda nor the Fifth Amendment requires suppression of prearraignment confession after voluntary waiver).
Miranda was not meant to protect suspects from boasting about their criminal activities in front of persons whom they believe to be their cellmates. This case is illustrative. Respondent had no reason to feel that undercover agent Parisi had any legal authority to force him to answer questions or that Parisi could affect respondent's future treatment. Respondent viewed the cellmate-agent as an equal and showed no hint of being intimidated by the atmosphere of the jail. In recounting the details of the Stephenson murder, respondent was motivated solely by the desire to impress his fellow inmates. He spoke at his own peril”.
Agradecimiento a:
Laurimar Meléndez por el arte de “El Supremazo”
Lcdo. Michael Hernández por el intro y outro.
Nos pueden contactar mediante correo electrónico a: supremazopr@gmail.com
