Because the detectives initiated the interrogation and did not provide counsel to Wint, Edwards requires suppression of the incriminating statement made to the detectives concerning the shooting in Camden. The admission of Wint’s statement — “I committed a murder in Camden” — was not harmless error and was clearly capable of causing an unjust result. Wint is therefore entitled to a new trial in the homicide case. Because the erroneous admission of the statement was not relevant to Wint’s other convictions, those stand. At a new trial, the State may not admit as substantive evidence Wint’s statement. The Court does not address arguments about the prosecutor’s summation, and it rejects Wint’s argument that the trial court improperly dismissed two jurors.
The appellate division ruling was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial. The Court’s ruling that Wint’s statement cannot be used as substantive evidence leaves open the possibility that it can be used as impeachment evidence. That means that if the defendant testifies to something that is inconsistent with his suppressed statements, those statements can by unsuppressed and used against him.
A related and unaddressed issue is if the distinction between pretrial detainees and convicts would apply in the case of a detainee that is released for a very short time and then re-arrested. Precedent says 14 days of release is enough time to create a meaningful distinction. It is unclear how many days would be too little.