Topic: PCRA-Ineffectiveness-Miranda Warnings
Summary: A defendant was Mirandized and refused to talk to a first police officer. A second police officer came in and began asking the defendant questions without giving him his Miranda warnings again. The defendant confessed. The defendant’s trial attorney did not attempt to have the confession suppressed on the grounds of a Miranda violation. The Superior Court applied Commonwealth v. Russell, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007), and found that there was a Miranda violation, and determined that the defendant’s claim of attorney ineffectiveness had merit.