Defendant’s admissions during a Perkins operation that used overt law enforcement to “stimulate” conversations between a Miranda-invoking suspect and undercovers violates Miranda.

People v. Zapata, 4^th Dist., Div. 1 (02/10/2026)

 

Police suspected Zapata of murder.  While Zapata was in jail on unrelated charges, police put him in a cell with two undercover cops posing as fellow inmates.  The undercovers tried to get Zapata to talk about the murder for about an hour, but Zapata kept schtum.  A policeman monitoring the undercovers’ attempts decided more pressure was needed.  The policeman pulled Zapata from the cell announcing he was going to be part of a lineup in front of a witness of the murder.  The lineup was fake.  Afterwards the policeman employed a lie ruse telling Zapata the witness identified him as the killer. 

Zapata invoked his right to an attorney.  So, the policeman escorted Zapata back to the cell with the undercovers and announced Zapata was being charged with murder.  After being placed back in the cell, the two undercovers, having heard their colleague’s announcement, began to press Zapata about the killing.  Zapata ultimately admitted being the killer.

Prior to trial, Zapata moved to exclude his admission as a violation of the Miranda rule.  The trial court denied Zapata’s motion, the admission was admitted at trial, and the jury convicted him of second-degree murder.  Zapata appealed.

This panel reverses and remands, finding the admission of a Miranda violation, prejudicial, and not harmless under Chapman. 

The panel begins by examining the facts and holding in Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292.  There an undercover cop was placed in jail with a suspect, who had not invoked his right to a lawyer.  The undercover engaged with the suspect, who made incriminating admissions.  The issue in Perkins was whether the undercover was required to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights prior to asking the suspect questions likely to elicit incriminating statements.  The US Supremes answered, “no.” 

After Perkins was decided, California intermediate appellate courts have enlarged Perkins to cases where a suspect has invoked his right to an attorney prior to being placed with interrogating undercovers.  People v. Orozco (2019) 32  C.A.4^th 802; People v. Felix (2024) 100 C.A.4^th 439.  Zapata made two arguments.  First, these cases, supra, were wrongly decided.  Second, Zapata’s facts are distinguishable due to the amount of overt police pressure exerted in tandem with the undercovers.

This panel punts on the first argument (the issue is currently before the Cal Supremes) but agrees with Zapata on the second issue.  Noting the gravamen of the Miranda line of cases is government coercion, presumedly absent when the pressure is being applied by forces unknown to the suspect to be government agents, the panel finds the operation here included copious amounts of overt police coercion.  It notes Zapata was with the undercovers for an hour and resisted their interrogations.  Making no progress, the uniformed police decided to “add” to the pressure to talk by conducting a fake lineup, telling a couple rather large lies, and pacing back and forth in view of Zapata.  Because Zapata had invoked his right to counsel, a Miranda violation was found when this pantomime was conducted sans a lawyer for Zapata. 

An examination of the remaining evidence at trial leads the panel to find that Zapata’s wrongly introduced admissions were prejudicial and not harmless.