Keith Phillips' Miranda waiver was "vitiated," even after a valid warning was given, his attorney Walter Chisholm told the court. Chisholm argued that once a detective made this statement to Phillips, the valid Miranda waiver ended and nothing his client later said could be used.
Under the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona
, police are required to advise criminal suspects in custody that they have a right to remain silent to protect themselves from self-incrimination and may speak with an attorney.Several Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices wondered Wednesday whether Miranda warnings held any meaning if police could make such a statement, and at least one questioned whether Phillips even understood the Miranda warning.
The court noted that the detective's response was prompted by Phillips asking, "You all gonna use this in court on me?"
But the state's attorney, Hugh Burns Jr., explained that Phillips' understanding of the Miranda warnings was not at issue in this case since the appeals court's decision was not based on his comprehension.
A Philadelphia jury convicted Phillips of first-degree murder in 2023 for the shooting death of Nasir Sadat. Statements he made placing himself at the scene of the crime, identifying himself as a lookout and admitting to having received money in connection with the crime came after he was told "nobody's using anything in court," his attorney said in court filings.
In 2024, the appeals court threw out the conviction, finding that Phillips' statements after he was given assurances were off-limits because police had violated his Miranda protections, Chief Justice Debra Todd explained when beginning the hearing Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Justice Todd said the case posed "a fairly straightforward question," seeming to agree with Chisholm that a detective couldn't directly contradict Miranda warnings and expect to use evidence then gleaned.
Justice Kevin M. Dougherty, however, said that case law supports police dishonesty.
"The United States Supreme Court indicated that, you know, employees that mislead a suspect or lull them into a full sense of security are okay, aka cops can lie," he said.
Chisholm responded, "I think I'm going to be on the ship with the Chief Justice here and say that you can't lie about those warnings, because otherwise the warnings, in my mind, are meaningless."
Burns argued that, as the trial court had found, Phillips' question about using his statements in court was limited to a discrete exchange over who had shot Phillips in a separate incident after the murder of Sadat.
The prosecutor explained that Phillips said at another point in the interview that if he didn't want to talk, he wouldn't, and that Phillips eventually asked for an attorney. This was proof that the Miranda waiver remained valid, but for that specific section, and that Phillips had the capacity and ability to invoke his rights but chose not to do so until he requested an attorney, the prosecutor said.
Justice Daniel D. McCaffery pushed back.
"The police officers' response is in direct contradiction to the Miranda warnings," Judge McCaffery said.
Chisholm said the court wasn't to speculate about the mindset of the defendant or the detective, but to merely read the words that were said, "Nobody's using anything in court."
To Chisholm, the matter began and ended there. After Phillips heard these words, his Miranda waiver was no longer valid, Chisholm said.
The state is represented by Hugh Burns Jr. of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.
Phillips is represented by Walter C. Chisholm.
The case is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Phillips, case number 19 EAP 2025, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Dave Trumbore.