State of Connecticut v. Julian J. Lockhart

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that neither the Connecticut Constitution nor the court’s supervisory authority requires police to electronically record custodial interrogations, Miranda warnings, or resulting statements. The court also held that testimony about the defendant’s refusal to sign a rights card, refusal to provide a written statement, statements concerning a codefendant, termination of the interview, and demeanor did not violate his due process right to remain silent because he had spoken after receiving Miranda warnings and the testimony described the investigative sequence rather than improperly using silence as proof of guilt. Palmer, J., concurring, agreed that the convictions should be affirmed because any recording-related error was harmless but would have required electronic recording of station-house interrogations.