United States of America v. Rajeri Curry

Newark, New Jersey, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with distributing heroine and fentanyl.



After Rajeri Curry was arrested for distributing heroin and fentanyl, she requested an attorney. The investigators then asked to examine her cell phone, and Curry consented, providing the phone's passcode. Curry objects to prosecutors using incriminating materials found on her phone, but we cannot exclude evidence to remedy a violation of the prophylactic rule announced in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).



Curry was indicted for conspiring to distribute heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(C), and possessing with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).2 Prior to trial, the

District Court denied Curry's motion to suppress the evidence extracted from her phone, which included text messages with

Al-Tariq and Shadee. The United States introduced that evidence at trial, along with Curry's prior drug convictions to

prove her knowledge and lack of mistake.



* * *



Actual constitutional violations are handled under a single standard: they render both direct and derivative evidence

inadmissible. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963).11 The same is true for direct evidence collected afoul

of Miranda. DeSumma, 272 F.3d at 180. But "derivative evidence secured as a result of a voluntary statement obtained

before Miranda warnings are issued” is not excludable. Id. That is because Miranda sweeps much further than our

constitutional protections, reaching statements lacking the compulsion necessary under the Fifth Amendment. Elstad, 470

U.S. at 306–07. So voluntary, but unwarned, statements may be admitted for limited purposes, like impeachment, Harris v.

New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224–26 (1971), whereas use of an involuntary statement is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment,

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978). And evidence discovered because of a voluntary unwarned statement is not

suppressed as it would be for an involuntary statement. Elstad, 470 U.S. at 305–

The Defendant was sentenced to 216 months in prison.