It was error to admit defendant’s statements after detectives failed to honor his invocation of the right to counsel, and that error was not harmless in light of the circumstantial nature of the evidence against defendant and his statements’ capacity to undermine his credibility before the jury. In this appeal, the State concedes that police violated defendant Jamal Wade’s Miranda rights by continuing a custodial interrogation after his unambiguous request for counsel. The Court considers whether it was harmless error to introduce at defendant’s trial inculpatory statements he made during that continued interrogation. After determining that defendant was a suspect in a shooting, two detectives approached defendant on the street, handcuffed him, and told him that he was under arrest for murder. Defendant was brought to headquarters for questioning. A detective read defendant his Miranda rights and explained that “if you want to speak to us, you know you have to waive the rights.” Defendant stated, “I got a lawyer,” and said, “Let me talk to him.” After further discussion, during which a detective told defendant that he was not under arrest, another detective asked, “Are you verbally agreeing to speak to [us] without your lawyer?” Defendant responded, “Yeah, verbally. . . . If I’m not under arrest, I don’t have to talk to anybody.” The interview continued, and defendant admitted that he was depicted in a video from a store where a stolen car tied to the murder had been captured on camera on the night of the shooting. After the detectives explained that additional footage placed him at different locations throughout the night and connected him to the stolen car, defendant stated, “Now I need to call my lawyer. This just got bad.” The detectives ended the interview and formally charged and booked defendant. The State moved to admit defendant’s statements from the interrogation. After a hearing, the judge ruled defendant’s statements admissible, finding that defendant waived his rights. Defendant’s statements were played at trial, and defendant was convicted on all counts. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that defendant had never exercised his right to an attorney and had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The Court granted certification limited to the waiver issue. 249 N.J. 77 (2021). 1. As all parties now agree, defendant’s interrogation should have ended as soon as defendant invoked his right to counsel by stating, “I got a lawyer. . . . Let me talk to him.” Defendant’s subsequent statements were obtained in violation of Miranda and were subject to suppression. The Court thus considers whether it was harmless error to admit defendant’s statements. 2. An error is rarely found to be harmless when the State violates a defendant’s right against self-incrimination. In State v. Tillery, any error in the admission of the defendant’s statement to police was found harmless (a) in light of the “overwhelming” evidence against the defendant and (b) because the disputed statements contained “little -- if any -- incriminating evidence relevant to [the crime of conviction].” 238 N.J. 293, 320-22 (2019). In that case, admission of the statement was not capable of changing the outcome of the trial. 3. This case is not like Tillery -- this is not an instance of overwhelming, direct evidence. Defendant’s statements identifying himself in the store footage strengthened the State’s theory of the case and the circumstantial evidence supporting it. Any doubt about whether defendant was the man on the surveillance tape was eliminated by the introduction of his statements. Further, defendant’s statement -- made after police failed to honor his invocation of the right to counsel -- that he had been at the store at the time of the murder was shown to be false by the surveillance footage. This undoubtedly tarnished defendant’s credibility in the eyes of the jury. In a case such as this -- where the State’s theory hinges on circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s location at a particular time -- a self- identifying, self-inculpatory statement that colors the defendant as a liar is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While police may extract such statements through interrogation, they must do so within the confines of the law. Only a new trial, one untainted by defendant’s unlawfully obtained admissions, can rectify the detectives’ failure to honor defendant’s Miranda rights. A-31-21 | 
