Boulder County sheriff’s detectives continued to interrogate a murder suspect even after he definitively invoked his constitutional right to remain silent, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded on Monday in barring the prosecution from using the man’s in-custody statements at trial.

The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office insisted a pair of detectives attempted to end the interrogation, but defendant Martin Otonoel Cerda was the one who voluntarily continued speaking.

A trial judge, however, determined the detectives repeatedly failed to take Cerda’s “no” for an answer, and the Supreme Court agreed the detectives disregarded Cerda’s right to silence by continuing to push him to talk.

“Here, the detectives never ceased questioning Cerda,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III in the June 24 opinion. “Cerda confirmed several more times that he didn’t want to talk — even ensuring he was ‘on record’ saying as much. But the interrogation continued for another three and a half minutes.”

Law enforcement arrested Cerda and three other suspects in the roadside shooting of Taylor Smith-Maxwell in October 2022. Prosecutors charged Cerda with murder, attempted murder and other crimes.

Detectives Eric Robinson and Don Dillard brought Cerda into an interrogation room, removed his handcuffs and gave a Miranda warning that advised Cerda about his constitutional right to silence and to consult with an attorney. Robinson asked Cerda if he understood those rights, to which Cerda answered in the affirmative.

“Do you want to talk to me right now?” Robinson asked.

“No,” said Cerda.

“So, here’s a question for you,” Dillard interjected. “If you say — say that you understand your Miranda warnings —”

Cerda broke in to say he was not “trying to hide anything” and the detectives can “ask a couple questions.” In response, Dillard clarified whether Cerda wanted to speak now.

“No,” Cerda answered.

The detectives continued to converse with Cerda until Dillard asked yet again if Cerda wanted to talk. No, Cerda said for the third time.

“And this is on the record, right? I do not want to talk to you guys,” Cerda confirmed a fourth time.

At that point, Dillard disclosed Cerda would be charged with murder, which prompted Cerda to ask for more details. The detectives said they were “not going to just volunteer information to you” because Cerda was not interested in talking to them. However, Robinson asked again, did Cerda now want to talk?

“Yeah, OK. I will talk to you guys so we can figure this out,” Cerda responded.

He proceeded to make incriminating statements about the firing of the gun that killed Smith-Maxwell. Cerda later invoked his right to an attorney and the questioning stopped.

The defense moved to bar the prosecution from using Cerda’s statements against him, arguing the detectives failed to respect his right to silence. In a Jan. 12 order, then-District Court Judge Patrick Butler agreed Cerda had unequivocally asserted his constitutional rights.

“Instead of ceasing questioning or taking other steps to counteract the coercive pressures of custodial interrogation,” he wrote, “the Detectives used tactics designed to put pressure onto Defendant in order to get him to talk with them.”

The prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court, acknowledging it was “true enough” that Cerda invoked his right to silence seven times in various ways. 

But Butler “completely ignored Defendant’s repeated encouragement that the detectives ask him questions,” wrote Senior Deputy District Attorney Ryan Day. “Detective Dillard attempted to end the interview twice, only for Defendant to extend it both times with questions and statements.”

Not true, the Supreme Court countered.

“Cerda didn’t immediately initiate further conversation. On the contrary, his next statement was a response to continued questioning,” Hood wrote.

He added that courts will usually not deem it part of the interrogation if police tell a suspect in custody the nature of the charges against them. However, in Cerda’s case, “the detectives knew or reasonably should have known that sharing this information after Cerda had repeatedly invoked his right to remain silent, which they failed to honor, was likely to elicit an incriminating response,” Hood elaborated.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Butler that Cerda’s statements to police were involuntary. All things considered, the Miranda violation did not “overbear Cerda’s will.” Therefore, while prosecutors will not be able to use the statements to prove their case, they can introduce the evidence to rebut or discredit potential testimony Cerda may offer during trial.

The case is People v. Cerda.