A man serving a life sentence for murder will receive a new trial after the state’s second-highest court determined he failed to understand that he could have an appointed lawyer present during interrogation and Arapahoe County law enforcement did not correct him.

Yury Sudakov appealed his 2018 conviction by arguing he had not knowingly waived his Miranda rights when he made incriminating statements to police. As established in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision of Miranda v. Arizona, Sudakov had the right to be advised, prior to an in-custody interrogation, that he could talk with a lawyer before and during questioning.

Sudakov, who received his Miranda warning through the translation of a Russian-speaking Arapahoe County sheriff’s deputy, responded by saying, “No, no need. … Why should I pay an attorney $300-400 per hour while I have no money?”

On Thursday, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals believed Sudakov had not consented to speak to police without an attorney present because the record showed he misunderstood his constitutional rights. Of the two officers in the room with Sudakov, “neither attempted to correct the misunderstanding,” wrote Judge David J. Richman in the panel’s opinion.

A jury convicted Sudakov of committing first-degree murder in February 2017. Sudakov shot his estranged wife, Svetlana Igolkin, in the head multiple times in their home while their teenage son witnessed the slaying. Sudakov then shot himself. Heavily intoxicated at the time, he apparently did not realize that he had shot and killed Igolkin until police told him at the end of his interrogation.

At trial, there was no dispute that Sudakov had killed Igolkin, only whether he intended to do so after deliberation. The defense instead argued that Sudakov was guilty of manslaughter or second-degree murder.

While Sudakov raised multiple issues on appeal, the Court of Appeals focused on what happened after Sudakov left the hospital and arrived at the interrogation room.

Investigator Niki Bales told sheriff’s Deputy Sergei Volkov that she had a Russian-speaking suspect in custody and asked him to translate. After Bales established that Sudakov spoke English, she introduced the two men and Sudakov expressed a preference for communicating in Russian through Volkov.

Volkov then summarized Sudakov’s Miranda rights and asked him to sign a form that contained the advisement in English. Among the rights listed were Sudakov’s ability to remain silent, the right to a lawyer during questioning and the warning that anything Sudakov said could be used against him in court.

Although the form said that Sudakov had the “right” to a lawyer, the deputy’s oral advisement was that the court could provide a public defender “if you need a lawyer.”

According to an English transcript of the encounter, Sudakov responded to the oral advisement of his rights by saying he had “nothing to hide” and “I believe you (Volkov).” As Volkov affirmed that Sudakov was choosing not to have an attorney present, Sudakov responded: “Why should I pay an attorney $300-$400 per hour while I have no money? I don’t want it.”

As Sudakov initialed the form, Bales asked Volkov what Sudakov had said about waiving his rights.

“He understood everything,” the deputy responded. “He would like to speak with us. He doesn’t like to have a lawyer because it’s very expensive for him and he doesn’t have anything to, kind of, to hide from us.”

On appeal, Sudakov contended that the trial judge was wrong to not suppress the statements he had made during his interrogation because the police had not made him fully aware of his right to an appointed attorney.

“The words ‘need’ and ‘want’ imply that you are incapable somehow,” argued Deputy State Public Defender Lisa Weisz. “Whereas telling someone they have the right to an attorney contemplates that they are a capable person but you have these rights that everybody has. That’s different.”

Majid Yazdi, senior assistant attorney general, acknowledged that there could have been “a more appropriate way” for Volkov to respond to Sudakov’s statements that he could not afford an attorney. However, Yazdi noted repeatedly that Sudakov was “eager from the beginning to talk” to his interrogators.

“You’ve referenced how eager he was probably 12 times,” responded Judge Ted C. Tow III. “If he doesn’t understand his rights, what relevance is his eagerness? If he mistakenly believes that he can only get an attorney with his own money, his eagerness has no bearing, does it?”

Tow added that one of the objectives of a Miranda advisement is to protect suspects from their own “eagerness” while in police custody.

Weisz agreed.

“The courts have said that the most damaging evidence against the defendant is what comes out of his own mouth,” she said.

The panel concluded that Sudakov did not knowingly relinquish his right to speak to an attorney, and that Volkov and Bales neglected to correct his impression that he needed to hire a lawyer himself. Because the prosecution ended up relying extensively on Sudakov’s interrogation at trial to prove he intended to murder his wife, the appellate judges found his statements to police likely affected his conviction.

As a result, Sudakov’s first-degree murder conviction is now reversed. The case is People v. Sudakov.