REVERSED ON APPEAL.
Ruling of man accused of causing the death of Orick woman overturned
In essence, there were several statements taken from the defendant. One was "Mirandized." One wasn't.
In the investigator's first interview, Rollin started talking before she had read him his rights. He denied any guilt.
In the subsequent interview, after having been read his rights, Rollin admitted guilt.
Instead of using the Mirandized admission of guilt, Gallegos made extensive use of the first statement. He used the un-Mirandized denial.
In other words, he used an illegal statement that was irrelevant and unnecessary.
In making its ruling the Appeals Court couldn't even consider it to be harmless error because Gallegos had made it central to his argument, playing both the videotape of the un-Mirandized statement, then contrasting it with the legally taken audio-taped Mirandized statement - and explicitly telling the jury to consider it as circumstantial evidence of Rollin guilt - apparently failing to understand the folly of using an un-Mirandized statement.
Read the full Ruling
The Appeals Court found that: 'Joseph Pierre Rollin appeals his conviction for abuse of a dependent adult. We reverse because a statement obtained in violation of the rule announced in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 was admitted at trial as evidence of his guilt, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)"