Supreme Court Restores Murder Conviction in Etan Patz Case

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on *Miranda* warnings and the assessment of confessions has implications for law enforcement and judicial proceedings across all states, including Nevada.

---

The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated the murder conviction of Pedro Hernandez in the 1979 death of Etan Patz, rejecting arguments that the trial judge gave improper instructions to jurors about how to evaluate his confessions. Hernandez was convicted in 2017 of kidnapping and murdering Patz, who disappeared at age 6 while heading to a school bus stop in New York City. The case became a landmark in missing children investigations and helped prompt creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The trial centered on confessions Hernandez provided during police interrogation. After approximately seven hours of questioning, police did not initially advise Hernandez of his rights under the 1966 Supreme Court decision in *Miranda v. Arizona*. Hernandez confessed during that period without a lawyer present. Police then gave him a *Miranda* warning, and he confessed again on video. Prosecutors presented both confessions at trial. During jury deliberations, jurors asked whether they should "disregard" Hernandez's post-*Miranda* confessions if they determined his earlier confessions were involuntary. The judge answered no. The jury convicted Hernandez after deliberating another week and sentenced him to 25 years to life. After his initial appeals failed, Hernandez sought federal post-conviction relief. He cited a 2004 Supreme Court case, *Missouri v. Seibert*, in which justices ruled that confessions made after interrogation without a *Miranda* warning, followed by renewed questioning after a warning, should be suppressed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with the lower federal court that the trial judge's instruction violated *Seibert* and was prejudicial to Hernandez. That court ordered either his release or a new trial. New York state appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the court had never extended *Seibert*'s suppression rule to jury deliberations. State lawyers also noted that requiring a new trial nearly 50 years after Patz's disappearance would create practical difficulties. Hernandez countered that the 2nd Circuit simply applied established precedent. He emphasized that no physical evidence connected him to Patz's disappearance beyond the confessions. In a 10-page unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court found that federal courts can only grant post-conviction relief when a state court decision violated law that was clearly established at the time. The justices wrote that it was not clearly established that a trial judge must instruct jurors about *Seibert* when evaluating an admitted confession. The court also stated that *Seibert*'s suppression rule does not apply to how a jury considers a confession that a court has already admitted into evidence. The court added that while the appeals court panel expressed doubt about Hernandez's confessions' reliability, federal law governing post-conviction relief for state prisoners does not allow federal courts to overturn convictions based on their own assessment of evidence. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have rejected the state's petition, offering no explanation for their position.