Ramirez v. State (739 So. 2d 568, 1999)

PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Nathan Ramirez. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

Nathan Ramirez and Jonathan Grim-shaw were both found guilty, after separate trials, of the first-degree murder of Mildred Boroski. Grimshaw was sentenced to life in prison, and Ramirez, age seventeen, was sentenced to death.

On appeal, Ramirez raises four issues: (1) that the State failed to sustain its burden of showing that his confession was voluntary and taken in compliance with Miranda; (2) that his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him was violated when a sheriffs detective testified regarding details of Grimshaw’s confession implicating Ramirez; (3) that the cold, calculated and premeditated aggravator (CCP) was not supported by the evidence and was inconsistent with a finding of the avoid arrest aggravator; and (4) that the imposition of the death penalty was disproportionate. We turn now to our consideration of these issues.

SUPPRESSION OF THE CONFESSION

Both prior to and during trial, Ramirez moved to suppress his confession. The trial court denied both motions and the confession was introduced as substantive evidence against him. The pertinent facts surrounding the confession follow.

The victim’s body was found in an open field not far from her home. Her death was caused by two gunshot wounds to the head. The subsequent investigation revealed that someone had broken into her home and stolen some items of jewelry, her gun, and about $35. There was evidence that the victim had been raped before her death.

Grimshaw, who was the victim’s neighbor, soon became a suspect. After several interviews and a final interrogation lasting several hours, Grimshaw confessed his involvement in the crime. Although Grim-shaw gave several inconsistent versions of events, he eventually admitted his involvement in the crime, but pointed to Ramirez as the ringleader.

In order to convince the police of the truthfulness of his statements regarding Ramirez’s involvement, Grimshaw phoned Ramirez from the station while the sheriffs detectives listened in and recorded the call. During the call, Ramirez and Grim-shaw discussed the items of physical evidence related to the crime that were in Ramirez’s possession and made plans to destroy the victim’s automobile to eliminate evidence of the crime.

Ramirez was at home around three o’clock that afternoon when, shortly after the phone call, a sheriffs deputy arrived wearing a badge and carrying a firearm. The deputy asked Ramirez to produce the physical evidence in his possession linked to the murder, including the suspected murder weapon and some of the victim’s jewelry. According to the deputy, Ramirez was a “little hesitant at first, [and] denied having the articles.” After the deputy informed Ramirez that he knew about the phone conversation with Grim-shaw, Ramirez turned over the items that were in the house and accompanied the deputy to retrieve other items. The deputy then asked Ramirez if he would be “willing to come with [him] to the sheriffs office” to speak with a detective. Once transported to the station, Ramirez was placed in a small room and questioned by two other detectives.

The entire interrogation at the station was videotaped and is part of the record on appeal. The videotape reveals that the lead detective began the interrogation by questioning Ramirez about how the items came into his possession. When Ramirez initially claimed that Grimshaw gave him the items, one of the detectives informed Ramirez that:

[Resources indicate that you may have some involvement in the case.... What I want you to do is I want you to be honest with me. The indication we have is that both you and John [Grim-shaw] are involved.... I want you to tell me what happened that night. I knoiv you were there. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t know that. You know what I’m saying?

After these statements by the detective, Ramirez admitted breaking into the victim’s house the night of the murder.

It was only after this admission that the second detective suggested that Ramirez be informed of his Miranda rights. The detective said:

Why don’t you let Nate [Ramirez] know about his rights. I mean, he’s already told us about going in the house and whatever. I don’t think that’s going to change Nate’s desire to cooperate with us.

Ramirez then asked if he was “like being placed under arrest?” to which the other detective responded, “No, no, I’m just reading your rights at this time.” After the Miranda rights were administered, Ramirez acknowledged what the detective had read by nodding and stating, “I guess that is what I’m here for.”

Ramirez eventually admitted his involvement not only in the burglary, but also in the murder. He stated that he was the one who shot the victim, denied any involvement in the rape, and claimed that he was acting at Grimshaw’s direction. Only after Ramirez fully confessed to the murder did the detectives belatedly obtain a written waiver of his Miranda rights. When Ramirez was asked to sign the waiver of rights form after he had fully confessed, the lead detective asked him to acknowledge that he had not been promised anything or been threatened before giving his statement. Ramirez’s response was that the detective had only promised to be his friend.

Both the United States and Florida Constitutions provide that persons shall not be “compelled” to be witnesses against themselves in any criminal matter. U.S. Const, amend. V; Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. This constitutional guarantee “is fully applicable during a period of custodial interrogation.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460-61, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Thus, to be admissible in a criminal trial, the State must prove that the confession was not compelled, but was voluntarily made. See, e.g., Miranda, 384 U.S. at 442-44, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 964-65 (Fla.1992).

In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court enunciated a bright-line rule to guard against compulsion and the coercive nature and atmosphere of custodial interrogation, and “assure that the individual’s right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process.” 384 U.S. at 469, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Miranda requires that police inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, and that anything they do say can be used against them in court. 384 U.S. at 468-69, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Suspects must also be informed that they have a right to an attorney during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them without cost. See id. at 467-76, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966.

“The requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is a fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege and not simply a preliminary ritual to existing methods of interrogation.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The Miranda court concluded that

without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.

Id. at 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Therefore, “unless and until [the Miranda ] warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against [the defendant].” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The protections enunciated in Miranda have been part of this State’s jurisprudence for over a century pursuant to the Florida Constitution. See Traylor, 596 So.2d at 964-66..

Ramirez argues that the requirements of Miranda were violated because the warnings were not administered before the interrogation began, rendering his confession to the crime inadmissible. “Interrogation takes place ... when a person is subjected to express questions, or other words or actions, by a state agent, that a reasonable person would conclude are designed to lead to an incriminating response.” Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966 n. 17. There is no question in this case that Ramirez was subjected to interrogation and was not initially informed of his Miranda rights. However, the State argues that Miranda warnings were not required because Ramirez was not in custody at the time that he was interrogated at the police station. We disagree.

Custody for purposes of Miranda encompasses not only formal arrest, but any restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest. See Arbelaez v. State, 626 So.2d 169, 175 (Fla.1993). A person is in custody if a reasonable person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest. See Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966 n. 16; Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228, 1231 (Fla.1985). “The proper inquiry is not the unarticulated plan of the police, but rather how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have perceived the situation.” Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182, 1188 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1076, — L.Ed.2d - (1998); see Roman, 475 So.2d at 1231.

The question of whether a suspect is in custody is a mixed question of law and fact. See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 106-07, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). The four-factor test adopted by the Iowa Supreme Court provides guidance in making the determination whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would consider himself in custody: (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning. See State v. Countryman, 572 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Iowa 1997). Although not set forth as a “four-factor test,” our case law includes a consideration of these same factors. See Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla.1988); Roman, 475 So.2d at 1231; Drake v. State, 441 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983).

Considering these factors, it is un-controverted that by the time the detective came to Ramirez’s home to request that he turn over the items of physical evidence related to the crime, Grimshaw had implicated Ramirez as a principal in the murder, and the police had listened in on the phone call with Grimshaw during which Ramirez admitted that he had items of physical evidence directly related to the crime. By the time Ramirez was brought to the police station for questioning, he had in fact turned over that physical evidence. The detectives told Ramirez that they knew he was involved. While the police may not have told Ramirez that he was under arrest, he was never told he was free to leave. They undoubtedly had probable cause to arrest him.

The record reflects that Ramirez was a juvenile (he had just turned seventeen) and had only limited contact with the justice system. We conclude that not only a reasonable juvenile, but even a reasonable adult in Ramirez’s position, would have believed that he was in custody at the time of the interrogation at the police station: he was questioned in a small room in the police station by two detectives, he was never told he was free to leave, and all of the questions indicated that the detectives considered him a suspect.

Short of being handcuffed and being told that he was under arrest, we cannot perceive of circumstances that would be more indicative of a custodial interrogation than the circumstances of the interrogation in this ease. Therefore, the Miranda warnings should have been administered prior to any questioning. See Caso, 524 So.2d at 422; Drake, 441 So.2d at 1081; see also B.S. v. State, 548 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the statements elicited prior to the Miranda warnings should have been suppressed, and it was error to admit them against Ramirez.

As to the statements elicited after the Miranda warnings were finally given, the United States Supreme Court explained in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 310-11, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), that the failure to administer the Miranda warnings before eliciting a confession does not necessarily render any subsequently warned statement inadmissible. Instead, if a “careful and thorough administration” of the Miranda warnings are later given, and the Miranda rights are waived, the condition that “rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible” is “cure[d].” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 311, 105 S.Ct. 1285; see Davis, 698 So.2d at 1189; Henry v. State, 613 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla.1992).

In Elstad, the police first questioned the defendant, who was eighteen and in his home in the presence of his parents, without the Miranda warnings having been administered. 470 U.S. at 300-01, 105 S.Ct. 1285. The defendant responded to the questioning with inculpatory statements. See id. at 301, 105 S.Ct. 1285. Police then transported him to the station and fully advised him of his rights, where-after he executed a written statement. See id. at 301-02, 105 S.Ct. 1285. The Supreme Court concluded that the first statements were properly suppressed, but that it was not necessary to suppress the statements made after the Miranda waiver, which was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See id. at 315-18, 105 S.Ct. 1285.

By contrast, in this case police began questioning Ramirez at the police station after failing to first administer the Miranda warnings. When the police finally administered the Miranda warnings, the administration was not careful and thorough. To the contrary, there was a concerted effort to minimize and downplay the significance of the Miranda rights.

As explained in Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), Miranda “echo[ed]” the standard of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), in holding that a defendant may waive the Miranda rights “provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” (Quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Whether the rights were validly waived must be ascertained from two separate inquiries:

First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived.

Moran, 475 U.S. at 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)); see Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Sliney v. State, 699 So.2d 662, 668 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1079, 140 L.Ed.2d 137 (1998).

The State bears the burden of proving that the waiver of the Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See Sliney, 699 So.2d at 667; Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198, 204 (Fla.1989). Moreover, where a confession is obtained after the administration of the Miranda warnings, the State bears a “ ‘heavy burden’ ” to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, especially where the suspect is a juvenile. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Fare, 442 U.S. at 724, 99 S.Ct. 2560; Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602; W.M. v. State, 585 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The State must establish its “ ‘heavy’ burden” by the “preponderance of the evidence.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167-68, 107 S.Ct. 515; see Balthazar v. State, 549 So.2d 661, 661 (Fla.1989); W.M., 585 So.2d at 983. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the ultimate issue of voluntariness is a legal rather than factual question. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985).

The “totality of the circumstances” to be considered in determining whether a waiver of Miranda warnings is valid based on the two-pronged approach of Moran may include factors that are also considered in determining whether the confession itself is voluntary. See Sliney, 699 So.2d at 669; see also State v. Sawyer, 561 So.2d 278, 284-85 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990). The factors that we consider relevant here include: (1) the manner in which the Miranda rights were administered, including any cajoling or trickery; see Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Brewer v. State, 386 So.2d 232, 237 (Fla.1980); (2) the suspect’s age, experience, background and intelligence, see State v. S.L.W., 465 So.2d 1231, 1232 (Fla.1985) (quoting Fare, 442 U.S. at 724-25, 99 S.Ct. 2560); Doerr v. State, 383 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla.1980); (3) the fact that the suspect’s parents were not contacted and the juvenile was not given an opportunity to consult with his parents before questioning, see Doerr, 383 So.2d at 907; (4) the fact that the questioning took place in the station house, see Drake, 441 So.2d at 1081; and (5) the fact that the interrogators did not secure a written waiver of the Miranda rights at the outset, see Sliney, 699 So.2d at 669 n. 10; Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966.

First, we find the manner in which the Miranda rights were administered to be a critical factor in determining that the waiver in this case was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent. The Supreme Court has explained that the question of whether the suspect has validly waived his rights “is not one of form.” Fare, 442 U.S. at 724, 99 S.Ct. 2560 (quoting North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979)). “[A]ny evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The voluntariness of a waiver “depend[s] on the absence of police overreaching.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 170, 107 S.Ct. 515.

In this case, the Miranda warnings were not given until Ramirez had made significant admissions of guilt. Then, immediately before administering the Miranda warnings, one of the detectives minimized their significance by suggesting in a casual, offhand manner that he did not expect Ramirez to invoke his rights: “I mean, he’s already told us about going in the house and whatever. I don’t think [the Miranda warnings are] going to change Nate’s desire to cooperate with us.”

To state to a juvenile that the Miranda warnings would not change his desire to cooperate, thus suggesting that they have no significance, undermines the very purpose of Miranda. As we have explained: “[T]he requirement of giving Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation is a prophylactic rule intended to ensure that the uninformed or uneducated in our society know they are guaranteed the rights encompassed in the warnings.” Davis, 698 So.2d at 1189; see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984).

The manner in which the rights were administered in this case was not a “thorough and careful administration” of the rights, such as those that rendered the subsequent confession admissible in Eld-stad. Instead, the actions of the police in this case were the kind of “cajoling” and “trickery” about which the Supreme Court warned in Miranda. Cf. People v. Honeycutt, 20 Cal.3d 150, 141 Cal.Rptr. 698, 570 P.2d 1050, 1055 (1977). Moreover, by suggesting that Ramirez would not invoke his rights because he had “already told [them] about going into the house,” the detectives exploited his prior unwarned statements and used them against him. In contrast, in Elstad the Supreme Court observed that the officers in that case did not exploit the suspect’s unwarned admissions to secure the subsequent waiver of the rights. 470 U.S. at 316, 105 S.Ct. 1285. This case is also in sharp contrast to Fare, where the police officers interrogating the suspect “took care” to ensure that the suspect understood his rights. 442 U.S. at 726, 99 S.Ct. 2560.

Further, after being told he was to be read his rights, Ramirez responded by asking if he was under arrest. The detectives answered “no.” However, by the time the warnings were given, Ramirez had already implicated himself in the crime and the detectives had independent corroboration of his involvement and ample probable cause to arrest him for murder. In fact, the detectives did arrest Ramirez upon completion of the interrogation. It is simply inappropriate for the police to make a representation intended to lull a young defendant into a false sense of security and calculated to delude him as to his true position at the very moment that the Miranda warnings are about to be administered. See Brewer, 386 So.2d at 237; Sawyer, 561 So.2d at 290-91; see also Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969); Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1548, 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998).

In conjunction with the circumstances surrounding the administration of the Miranda warnings, we consider the fact that Ramirez was a juvenile and had only limited experience with the with the criminal justice system. See supra note 4. Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has adopted a bright-line rule that would render a confession by a juvenile involuntary. See Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 52-55, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962); State v. Francois, 197 So.2d 492, 493-95 (Fla.1967). Instead, we look to the juvenile’s age, along with his experience, education, background and intelligence, in assessing whether the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent. See S.L.W., 465 So.2d at 1232 (quoting Fare, 442 U.S. at 724-25, 99 S.Ct. 2560); see also Doerr, 383 So.2d at 907; Rimpel v. State, 607 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

In conjunction with this age-related inquiry, we also consider the fact that because Ramirez was a juvenile, police were obligated to attempt, and “continue such attempt,” to notify his parents upon taking him into custody. § 39.037(2), Fla. Stat. (1995) (emphasis supplied). Although the failure to comply with this statutory requirement does not render a confession involuntary, we have found that: “ ‘The fact that a juvenile’s confession was given before he had the opportunity to talk with his parents or an attorney is certainly a factor militating against its admissibility.’ ” Doerr, 383 So.2d at 907 (quoting Doerr v. State, 348 So.2d 938, 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)); see also Allen v. State, 636 So.2d 494, 496 n. 2 (Fla.1994). We find that this analysis applies with equal force when determining the knowing, intelligent and voluntary nature of a Miranda waiver, especially in light of the manner in which the Miranda warnings were administered in this case.

In Allen, we found that it was error for police to continue questioning the suspect after his mother had requested to speak with him, citing to section 39.037(2). 636 So.2d at 496. In this case, Ramirez’s parents were not even given an opportunity to see or speak with their son before or during his questioning. The fact that Ramirez’s parents were not given an opportunity to be present during the interrogation distinguishes such cases as Ross v. State, 386 So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980), and Rimpel, where the parents were either present during the juvenile’s questioning or offered an opportunity to be present. See also S.L.W., 465 So.2d at 1232 (juvenile defendant’s statement given in driveway of the home of his temporary foster family). Further, this case is distinguishable from Bonifay v. State, 626 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1993), where the suspect was offered an opportunity to have his parents or attorney present at his interrogation, but “specifically did not want his parents to be contacted.” Compare Snipes v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S191, 733 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1999) (confession was not involuntary where juvenile’s mother had been informed that he was being taken to jail; juvenile had a GED; juvenile was administered the Miranda warnings before confessing; the interrogation lasted for less than twenty minutes; the juvenile signed a written waiver form).

The State maintains that some attempts were made to contact Ramirez’s parents earlier. However, the statute would be rendered meaningless if all that is required are perfunctory attempts to contact a juvenile’s parents. Here, the State, who must bear the burden of demonstrating statutory compliance, did not present evidence of any meaningful or continuing attempt to contact Ramirez’s parents.

Finally, when the warnings were administered, they were administered orally. A written waiver of the warnings was not secured until after Ramirez had fully confessed his involvement in the crime. Whether the waiver of the Miranda rights is in writing is one more factor to consider in evaluating the totality of the circumstances. See Sliney, 699 So.2d at 669 n. 10; see also Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966.

In this case, we stress that neither the veracity nor the credibility of the detectives is at issue, but only the uncontrovert-ed facts, including: the fact that the detectives delayed administering the Miranda warnings until Ramirez made inculpatory admissions; the fact that no careful and thorough administrations of the Miranda rights occurred — instead, before administering the Miranda warnings the detective diluted their effect by downplaying their significance; the fact that when administering the warnings the detectives used Ramirez’s previous unwarned inculpatory statements to suggest he would not invoke his rights; the fact that Ramirez was a juvenile, with little experience in the criminal justice system; the fact that his parents were not present when he was interrogated; and the fact that the waiver of the rights was not in writing. Based on the totality of these circumstances, we find that the oral waiver was invalid as a matter of law. Accordingly, we conclude that the confession should have been suppressed. Because we cannot conclude that the admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, a new trial is required. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).

QUESTIONING REGARDING THE CODEFENDANT’S CONFESSION

Further, since we are reversing for a new trial, we also discuss the erroneous admission of the details of Grimshaw’s confession implicating Ramirez. During the cross-examination of one of the detectives during the guilt phase, defense counsel inquired whether it was the true that Grimshaw had given so many versions of events that the police did not know who to suspect, whether it was true that Grim-shaw led detectives on a “merry chase” in the wrong direction in a bogus search for the body, whether it was true that Ramirez cast blame on Grimshaw as the leader of events the night of the murder, and whether the detective had any evidence contrary to Ramirez’s claims that he was not involved in the sexual assault on the victim and that he murdered her because Grimshaw told him to do so.

On redirect, over objection, the prosecutor was permitted to elicit not just that Grimshaw’s confession was “evidence” contradicting Ramirez’s claims of what took place, but also details from Grimshaw’s confession, including Grimshaw’s statement that it was Ramirez who wanted to kill the victim. The prosecutor maintained to the trial court that he was permitted to elicit the details of Grimshaw’s statements because Ramirez “brought up” the subject on cross-examination.

The State concedes that under most circumstances it is error to admit the details of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession into evidence against the defendant. This is because admission of a code-fendant’s statements is inadmissible hearsay and violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 128, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1318 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1337, 140 L.Ed.2d 499 (1998), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1582, 140 L.Ed.2d 796 (1998). A codefendant’s statements are especially suspect because he has a strong motivation to implicate another, rendering these statements even less credible than ordinary hearsay. See Lee, 476 U.S. at 541, 106 S.Ct. 2056; Farina v. State, 679 So.2d 1151, 1155 (Fla.1996).

However, the State maintains that the questioning was permissible during the State’s redirect because Ramirez himself “opened the door” to this testimony during the cross-examination of the detective during the guilt phase of trial. As an eviden-tiary principle, the concept of “opening the door” allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to “qualify, explain, or limit” testimony or evidence previously admitted. Tompkins v. State, 502 So.2d 415, 419 (Fla.1986); see Huff v. State, 495 So.2d 145, 150 (Fla.1986); Blair v. State, 406 So.2d 1103, 1106 (Fla.1981).

The concept of “opening the door” is “based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial.” Bozeman v. State, 698 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). For example, in McCrae v. State, 395 So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1980), defense counsel through his questions on direct examination “tactfully attempted to mislead the jury into believing that [the defendant’s] prior felony was inconsequential.” This Court held that to negate the misleading impression given by defense counsel’s question, the prosecutor was entitled to elicit the nature of the prior felony conviction on cross-examination. See id. at 1152. The Court found that the defendant’s

line of questioning could have deluded the jury into equating appellant’s conviction of assault with intent to commit murder with his previous misdemeanors. Consequently, the state was entitled to interrogate [the defendant] regarding the nature of his prior felony in order to negate the delusive innuendoes of his counsel.

Id. at 1152.

The phrase “opening the door” has been utilized interchangeably with the rule of completeness. See, e.g., Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 402 (Fla.1996). The rule of completeness, however, is a separate evi-dentiary concept that falls within the general principle of door-opening. Codified at section 90.108, Florida Statutes (1995), the rule of completeness provides that “[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” This rule has been applied to verbal statements as well. See Christopher v. State, 583 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.1991); see also Reese v. State, 694 So.2d 678, 683 (Fla.1997).

“Fairness is dearly the focus of this rule.” Jordan v. State, 694 So.2d 708, 712 (Fla.1997). Thus, when a party introduces part of a statement, confession, or admission, the opposing party is ordinarily entitled to bring out the remainder of the statement. See Larzelere, 676 So.2d at 402; see also Christopher, 583 So.2d at 646. This rule is not absolute, and “the correct standard is .whether, in the interest of fairness, the remaining portions of the statements should have been contemporaneously provided to the jury.” Larzelere, 676 So.2d at 402. A good example of this principle is Walsh v. State, 596 So.2d 756, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where the defendant opened the door to the admission of the codefendant’s complete confession by asking questions on cross-examination designed “to glean select portions from [the codefendant’s] statement which implicated the [codefendant] in the murder, but not [the defendant.]”

In this case however, the defendant did not elicit any portions or parts of Grimshaw’s confession from the officer during cross-examination. Thus, the rule of completeness did not apply to permit the introduction of the details of Grim-shaw’s confession on redirect. Because the rule of completeness does not apply in this ease, the appropriate inquiry here is whether based on considerations of fairness, the door was opened wide enough by defense counsel’s questions to permit otherwise inadmissible and unreliable statements to be admitted into evidence. The “general unreliability of inadmissible evidence should be one of the court’s considerations in determining whether fairness requires admission.” Jordan, 694 So.2d at 712 (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 108.1, at 35 (1995 ed.)).

In Pacheco v. State, 698 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the Second District found that the State was properly allowed to ask whether the codefendant had implicated the defendant because defense counsel’s questions implied that only one other person incriminated the defendant. However the State went too far when it elicited details of the confession:

The detective’s testimony and the taped statement, however, went well beyond the fact that [the codefendant] accused [the defendant] of participating in the crime. This evidence provided specific details about the commission of the offense, and it portrayed Pacheco as the instigator of the crime. [The defendant’s] limited questions about Ms. Humphrey’s role in his capture did not throiv the door open wide enough to admit the entire confession of a code-fendant ivho refused to testify. This evidence was inadmissible; it violated both the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause.

Id. at 595 (emphasis supplied). The Second District found that the only issue from cross-examination that warranted explanation was whether anyone else had led the detective to suspect the defendant. Thus, the admission of the details of the code-fendant’s statement warranted reversal of the conviction. See id. at 595-96.

In this case, the limited questions by the defense counsel on cross-examination of the officer that needed to be clarified or explained on redirect were whether there was any other “evidence” that pointed to Ramirez as the individual who raped the victim or contradicted Ramirez’s assertion that he acted at Grimshaw’s direction. This inquiry opened the door only to allow the State to explain that Grimshaw’s confession contradicted these assertions. It did not open the door to the questions on redirect regarding the details of what Grimshaw stated when Grimshaw was unavailable for cross-examination.

Further, the testimony about the contents of Grimshaw’s statement was clearly inadmissible in the penalty phase where the state, again over objection, elicited even more highly inflammatory details of Grimshaw’s confession. The State called one of the investigative detectives as the first penalty phase witness. He was asked to review for the jury the details of Grim-shaw’s confession, which included highly inflammatory statements that Ramirez verbally abused Grimshaw and threatened his life to secure his participation in the crime, anally raped the victim prior to her death, planned to set the victim’s house on fire to destroy evidence, turned and smiled at Grimshaw after shooting the victim, and decided to kill the victim because she had seen his face. The State then used these hearsay statements against Ramirez to argue in support of the aggravating factors.

The State agrees that this “type of testimony is normally not admissible in the penalty phase.” (Answer Brief at 28.) However, the State maintains that this testimony was ■ admissible in this case because of the testimony concerning the confession previously allowed in the guilt phase. We disagree. As discussed previously, Ramirez’s questions of the deputy did not open the door to the admission of the details of the confession during the guilt phase, much less to the additional graphic and damaging details admitted during the penalty phase. It is equally impermissible and violative of the defendant’s constitutional rights in the penalty phase to allow the admission of the details of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession where the defendant has not had an opportunity to confront or cross-examine that witness. See Gardner v. State, 480 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1985); see also Walton v. State, 481 So.2d 1197, 1200 (Fla.1985). Thus, even if we were not reversing for a new guilt phase, we would be compelled to reverse, at the very least, for a new penalty phase.

ERRORS IN THE SENTENCING ORDER

While declining to address proportionality at this time, we point to two deficiencies in the sentencing order. First, the trial court gave Ramirez’s age “little weight,” despite the fact that Ramirez was only one month over the age of seventeen at the time of the crime, and even though there was uncontroverted evidence of his emotional, intellectual and behavioral immaturity. In addition, although the trial court acknowledged that Ramirez had no significant history of prior criminal activity, it found that this factor did not deserve “significant weight” because Ramirez had been prosecuted as a juvenile for a prior auto burglary.

In regard to Ramirez’s age the trial court found:

At the time this murder was committed, the defendant was seventeen years old. Relevant expert testimony in this regard indicates that the defendant is more immature emotionally, intellectually and behavior-wise than his chronological age, but there was no evidence that he was, or is, in any way retarded or has a subnormal I.Q. The defendant’s age at the time of he crime, while a mitigating factor, is given little weight.

We have explained that “age is simply a fact, every murderer has one.” Echols v. State, 484 So.2d 568, 575 (Fla.1985) (defendant was fifty-eight years old at the time of the crime). However, while we noted in Garcia v. State, 492 So.2d 360, 367 (Fla.1986), that the defendant’s age of twenty, without more, was not significant mitigation, we have held that when the murder is committed by a minor, the mitigating factor of age must be found and given “full weight.” Ellis v. State, 622 So.2d 991, 1001 n. 7 (Fla.1993) (emphasis supplied). “[T]he weight can be diminished by other evidence showing unusual maturity.” Id. at 1001; see also Shellito v. State, 701 So.2d 837, 843 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1537, 140 L.Ed.2d 686 (1998). Compare Mahn v. State, 714 So.2d 391, 400 (Fla.1998) (finding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider defendant’s age of twenty as a statutory mitigating factor in light of the fact that Mahn had an “extensive, ongoing, and unrebutted history of drug and alcohol abuse, coupled with lifelong mental and emotional instability”); with LeCroy v. State, 533 So.2d 750, 758 (Fla.1988) (finding that the weight of the mitigating factor was diminished by Le-Croy’s unusual mental and emotional maturity).

In this case there was no evidence to suggest unusual maturity such that the weight of this mitigator should have been diminished. See Ellis, 622 So.2d at 1001. To the contrary, the evidence revealed that Ramirez was immature for his age. Ramirez had the emotional, intellectual and behavioral maturity of a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old, and suffered from learning disabilities that evidenced an “organic problem” in his brain. Moreover, Ramirez’s youth is linked not only with his emotional and intellectual immaturity, but also with his unrebutted history of “huffing.” See Mahn, 714 So.2d at 400; Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 418 (Fla.1998). Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in giving “little weight” to the defendant’s age at the time of the crime, despite the uncontroverted testimony of defendant’s emotional, intellectual and behavioral immaturity. See Shellito, 701 So.2d at 843; Ellis, 622 So.2d at 1001.

The trial court further erred in finding that the defendant’s arrest as a juvenile for stealing a ten-dollar bill from the dashboard of a pick-up truck “militated] against giving significant weight” to the mitigating factor that Ramirez had “no significant history of prior criminal activity.” Adjudication on the juvenile arrest was withheld, and Ramirez successfully completed an alternative program. See supra note 4. The circumstances of the crime do not “militate against” giving this statutory factor “significant weight.” The trial court abused its discretion in so finding. See Ellis, 622 So.2d at 1001.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we find that the confession given prior to the written waiver should have been suppressed. We further find that the trial court erred in allowing the details of the codefendant’s confession in both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial because the cross-examination did not open the door to the details of the hearsay statements of the non-testifying codefend-ant.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

SHAW and PARIENTE, JJ„ and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs with an opinion, in which SHAW and PARIENTE, JJ„ and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur.

WELLS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur.

. Grimshaw’s conviction and life sentence were per curiam affirmed. See Grimshaw v. State, 704 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Grimshaw was several months older than Ramirez, one grade ahead of him, and had a history of more extensive disciplinary problems, including allegations of inappropriate sexual advances against older women.

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

. Although "our analysis in Traylor [v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla.1992),] was grounded in the Florida Constitution, our conclusions were no different than those set forth in prior holdings of the United States Supreme Court.” State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715, 719 (Fla.1997).

. It would appear that Ramirez had very limited experience with either the adult or juvenile justice system. Ramirez indicated in his confession that he had been involved in a couple of fights at school. In 1993, when Ramirez was fifteen, he was arrested for taking ten dollars from the dashboard of a pickup truck through an open window. Adjudication was withheld, and he was placed in an alternative program including counseling and community service, which he successfully completed.

.We are aware of testimony from the penalty phase that although Ramirez was seventeen, he had learning disabilities and was performing academically at an eighth or ninth grade level. He had an emotional, intellectual and behavioral age of thirteen or fourteen. However, this evidence was not offered at the suppression hearing, and for that reason we do not consider it in our analysis on this issue. See Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1548, 140 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998).

. The current version of this subsection is now located at subsection 985.207(2), Florida Statutes (1997).

. Although Doerr v. State, 383 So.2d 905 (Fla.1980), was decided under superseded law, see § 39.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1975), the statutory language is “sufficiently similar” to the statute applicable in this case that Doerr's holding “still obtains.” Allen v. State, 636 So.2d 494, 496 n. 2 (Fla.1994).

. The record reflects that Ramirez's parents came to the station house after Ramirez’s confession, apparently responding to a message left on their telephone answering machine at home. The record is unclear about any other attempts to contact Ramirez's parents. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the sheriff's deputy who went to Ramirez’s home testified on cross-examination that he knew Ramirez was a minor and asked him where his parents were and how they could be contacted. His testimony does not indicate when this question was asked nor does his testimony at the motion to suppress indicate any response from Ramirez. The videotape reveals that it was only after Ramirez confessed to the crime that the detectives begin to question Ramirez in earnest about the whereabouts of his parents, who both worked for a nursing agency.

. Although in Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1318 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1337, 140 L.Ed.2d 499 (1998), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1582, 140 L.Ed.2d 796 (1998), the codefendants were tried jointly,

[t]he fact that the defendants here were tried separately rather than jointly does not vitiate the constitutional infirmity [of admitting the statements of a non-testifying code-fendant without allowing the defendant to cross-examjne the declarant.] The crux of a Bruton violation is the introduction of statements which incriminate an accused without affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Nelson v. State, 490 So.2d 32, 34 (Fla.1986) (quoting Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683, 687 (Fla.1978)) (emphasis supplied).

. We reject Ramirez’s contention in his third point on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the murder was cold, calculated and premeditated (CCP), and that the aggravating circumstances of commission to avoid arrest and CCP had to be merged. See Jennings v. State, 718 So.2d 144 (Fla.1998); Stein v. State, 632 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1994).

. See supra note 4.

. According to testimony, "huffing” is the inhalation of chloroflouorocarbons from an aerosol or spray pain can to produce a sensation of being "high.” An empty aerosol can was found near the vehicle involved with the crime. There was substantial uncontroverted evidence that Ramirez engaged in huffing during the months before the murder.

ANSTEAD, J.,

concurring.

The record in this case reflects a blatant violation of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Miranda v. Arizona, as well as a violation of Florida’s statutory and case law requiring the police to immediately notify a minor’s parents when the minor is taken into custody. The police conduct involved herein essentially turns Miranda on its head by interrogating first, and then issuing the Miranda warnings and contacting the parents after the minor defendant has incriminated himself. For that reason, I fully concur in the majority’s opinion, and especially its reliance upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). I write separately to emphasize that this case presents the precise scenario that the United States Supreme Court meant to protect against by adopting the Miranda rule, and that the Miranda violation was even more egregious here because the accused was a minor.

Initially, it is important to make clear that the circumstances surrounding the detention and interrogation of the minor defendant should be the focus for resolving the suppression issue, not the facts surrounding the murder, as suggested by the dissent. The senseless and tragic nature of the murder is conceded by all, but invoking the grisly circumstances of the murder only invites an emotional response and adds confusion to the legal issue of whether Ramirez’ confession should have been suppressed.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONFESSION

It goes without saying that Ramirez’ pre-Miranda statements are inadmissible. However, the initial confession secured in violation of Miranda and the circumstances under which it was given are of critical importance in determining the vol-untariness and ultimately, the admissibility of the post-Miranda statements. Further, as the majority points out and as the dissent appears to agree, Ramirez was in custody at the time police interrogation commenced. In fact, as pointed out by the majority, the police had an extraordinary amount of evidence against Ramirez and hence, an abundance of probable cause to arrest him at the time they went to his home.

Indeed, it is doubtful that there could be more probable cause than existed here. Incredibly, the police not only had the codefendant’s statement directly implicating Ramirez, but also a police-designed and controlled verification of Ramirez’ involvement from Ramirez’ own mouth during a controlled telephone conversation the police set up with the codefendant. Under those circumstances the police were not free to avoid the strictures of Miranda by asserting “tongue-in-cheek” that they had no probable cause to believe Ramirez was involved in the murder.

PROBABLE CAUSE

The police first learned of Ramirez’ involvement in the murder from Ramirez’ co-felon, John Grimshaw, who confessed to the crime and also implicated Ramirez in the murder by identifying him as the actual shooter. The police followed up this confession by asking Grimshaw to call Ramirez while they secretly listened and controlled the conversation to verify Grim-shaw’s statement that Ramirez was involved. During the conversation, Ramirez inculpated himself by acknowledging familiarity with items stolen from the victims house: to wit, a gun, a couple of rings, and a pair of handcuffs. In other words, the staged conversation directly verified Grimshaw’s statement to police implicating Ramirez.

Following the telephone conversation, and without any attempt to locate or notify Ramirez’ parents, the police went right to Ramirez’ house to obtain the stolen items and the murder weapon discussed in the staged conversation. At the time, Ramirez’ parents were not home. Upon arrival, the police, without even a wink at Miranda, confronted Ramirez and asked him for the items taken from the victim’s house. They also informed him of their knowledge about the telephone conversation with Grimshaw. In response, Ramirez actually handed over one of the stolen rings. The police then asked Ramirez to take them to the location of the weapon used in the murder and the remaining stolen items, again without any Miranda warnings and without notifying his parents. Finally, after obtaining the incriminating materials from Ramirez, and again without attempting to notify his parents, the police “asked” Ramirez to come to the police station.

Upon arrival at the police station, Ramirez was immediately placed in an interrogation room. Thereafter, without notifying Ramirez of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney, and without informing him that anything he said could be used against him, or attempting to notify his parents, the police interrogated Ramirez about the murder. After Ramirez admitted his involvement in the murder, the police finally, but even then half-heart-edly, informed him of his Miranda rights. The trap was now sprung, and the police led the minor defendant to inculpate himself before informing him of his rights and thus violated Miranda.

THE LAW

This case is controlled essentially by the rule set out in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), as well as the relevant Florida statutes governing parental notification when minors are taken into custody. Both the majority and dissenting opinion correctly cite Elstad for the proposition that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned, uncoercive questioning is not thereafter forever foreclosed from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings. See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318, 105 S.Ct. 1285. Notwithstanding, the Court clearly stated that the subsequent statements may only be allowed when two important conditions are met: (1) the failure to administer the Miranda warnings was unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will; and (2) the unwarned statements are followed by a careful and thorough administration of the Miranda warnings. See id. at 309-11, 105 S.Ct. 1285 (emphasis added). In determining whether the post -Miranda statements were voluntarily made, the “surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect” must be examined. Id. at 318, 105 S.Ct. 1285 (emphasis added). In reviewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding Ramirez’s inculpatory statements, it is painfully obvious that neither factor set out by the Elstad Court was met in this case.

Critically here, for example, at the time the mandated Miranda warnings were finally administered, Ramirez had already been directly implicated by Grimshaw, and had admitted possession of inculpatory evidence and specifically confessed to being present with Grimshaw in the victim’s house on the night of the murder. The police did not warn Ramirez of his rights at any point in this carefully orchestrated trap, nor did they meaningfully attempt to contact his parents, despite the actual knowledge that Ramirez was a minor. Indeed, it is conceded that the police had spent approximately an hour interrogating Ramirez before asking him how his parents could be reached, and then, ironically, informing him that they were required by law to notify them or his guardian. It is against this factual backdrop that the Miranda issue must be resolved.

In applying the first prong of Elstad here, it is important to keep in mind what the police knew at the time Ramirez was asked to go to the police station. As noted above, Grimshaw had already implicated Ramirez as the shooter and the police had verified Ramirez’ involvement through the telephone conversation between Grimshaw and Ramirez. When Ramirez was initially approached by the police, the police asked about but did not attempt to notify his parents. Ramirez was then placed in an interrogation room at a police station instead of a place more familiar to him, such as his home. More importantly, the police told Ramirez they knew that both he and Grimshaw had been involved and that they knew he was at the victim’s house on the night of the murder. This evidence directly refutes the police story that Ramirez was only a possible witness at the time they picked him up and brought him in for interrogation. We must remember that the police had total control over the staged telephone conversation set up to verify Grimshaw’s statement against Ramirez. Despite this, when Ramirez asked if he was under arrest, the detectives told him “no,” even though, as previously stated, the police had an abundance of probable cause to arrest Ramirez at that time, and, indeed, he was never released from custody from that point on.

As to the second prong of Elstad, the dissent suggests that Elstad supports the admission of the subsequent confession in this case because there, the officers read Elstad his rights in much the same manner as the officers did in this case. See concurring and dissenting op. at 595, n. 20. However, a proper reading of Elstad clearly does not support such a conclusion. First, in Elstad, the pre-Miranda statements were made in a completely different setting than the setting in this case. There, the statements were made in the respondent’s home with his mother several steps away in the kitchen. Second, El-stad’s parents knew at all times what was happening and that he was being taken to the police station for interrogation.

Of even greater significance, however, is the Supreme Court’s specific observation that the officers did not exploit the unwarned admission to pressure the defendant into waving his right to remain silent. See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 316, 105 S.Ct. 1285 (emphasis added). This case, in marked contrast, presents a blatant example of the police use of Ramirez’ unwarned admissions to induce him to waive his rights and provide a more detailed confession. Immediately before the Miranda rights were read to Ramirez, Detective Jones purposefully minimized their significance and encouraged Ramirez to waive his rights by casually stating: “Why don’t you let Nate know about his rights. I mean, he’s already told us about going in the house and whatever. I don’t think [the Miranda warnings are] going to change Nate’s desire to cooperate with us.” This was followed by a quick recitation, for the first time and in an off-handed manner, of Ramirez’ rights.

This purposeful sleight-of-hand passage over the Miranda hump (these rights aren’t “going to change Nate’s desire to cooperate with us.”), was far from the “careful and thorough” administration of Miranda rights required by the Supreme Court in Elstad. In fact, the Elstad Court specifically stated that in that case the failure to read the Miranda rights initially could have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as custodial interrogation, or it may have simply reflected the officer’s reluctance to initiate an alarming police procedure before speaking to the mother. See id. at 315-16, 105 S.Ct. 1285. However, in the instant case, the record supports no other conclusion than a concerted effort to nail down Ramirez’ involvement in the crime before giving any Miranda warning, followed by an attempt to keep him talking since he had already told them about his involvement. What good would it do to stop then?

There can hardly be a more compelling and coercive practice to induce further admissions than that person’s own prior confession. “A principal reason why a suspect might make a second or third confession is simply that, having already confessed once or twice, he might think that he has little to lose by repetition.” Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, 350, 88 S.Ct. 1488, 20 L.Ed.2d 630 (1968) (Harlan, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part). Moreover, any person who does not know that any statement made before the waiver is not admissible will logically think that it is much worse to assert the right to remain silent after having already confessed. Fittingly, the record reflects that it was not until Ramirez had orally waived his rights and given a lengthy and detailed description of the murder that the detective finally produced for the first time a written waiver and for the first time carefully and thoroughly explained the minor defendant’s rights. Under Miranda, of course, this was a little late.

NOTIFICATION OF PARENTS

As pointed out by the majority, the police conduct involved here would be improper even if the subject involved had been an adult. Notwithstanding, the ultimate fact is that this case involves a minor, not an adult, and as such, it requires special care. See Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948) (holding that courts must take special care in scrutinizing the record in cases involving a confession by a juvenile). In Florida, the Legislature has gone to great lengths to provide special provisions and safeguards for minors who are taken into custody and who inevitably are at a greater risk to succumb to police influence and coercion. As part of these special provisions, Florida requires the police to immediately notify the parents of the child when taking the child into custody.

Specifically, section 39.037(2), Florida Statutes (1995), provides:

When a child is taken into custody as provided by this section, the person taking the child into custody shall attempt to notify the parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child.. The person taking the child into custody shall continue such attempt until the parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child is notified or the child is delivered to an intake counselor pursuant to s. 39.047, whichever occurs first. If the child is delivered to an intake counselor before the parent, guardian, or legal custodian is notified, the intake counselor or case manager shall continue the attempt to notify until the parent, guardian, or lega