People v. Carey

In People v. Carey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 99, after a detective advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and asked the defendant whether he wanted to talk, the defendant unequivocally asserted from the outset, "I ain't got nothin' to say." The detective continued to ask the defendant three more times if he would answer some questions, and the defendant responded three more times, "I ain't got nothing to say. . . ." Ultimately, however, the defendant essentially confessed to all crimes with which he was charged. Rejecting the contention that the detective was merely attempting to clarify the defendant's intentions, the Carey court found it "difficult, if not impossible, to square appellant's emphatic unwillingness to say anything with anything other than an invocation of the right to remain silent," noting "were we to sanction the police procedures here challenged, the 'clarification' exception would swallow the Miranda rule." (People v. Carey, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at pp. 104-105 "How many times must a defendant exclaim, 'I ain't got nothin' to say' to invoke his privilege to remain silent?".)