California man’s 40-year murder sentence reversed over police interrogation tactics

Justices say a police detective erred by prompting murder suspect to further talk after he asked for a lawyer during initial questioning.

An appellate court has reversed the murder conviction of an Anaheim man who was prompted to talk by a police detective after he invoked his right to an attorney.

The defendant, Ismael Avalos, 28, ended up giving Anaheim detectives what amounted to a confession in the shooting death of a romantic rival.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal published its decision Dec. 2, saying Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregg Prickett should not have allowed into evidence anything that Avalos said after he asked for a lawyer.

“After invoking the right to counsel, police cannot question the suspect any further ‘unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police,’ ” said the ruling by appellate Justices Eileen C. Moore, Kathleen E. O’Leary and William W. Bedsworth.

Justices ruled that Detective Julissa Trapp initiated further communication by telling Avalos, “If for some reason you want to change your mind and you wanna talk to me, you can, just ask for me … because I care about you getting your story the right way out.”

Justices said, “In short, Trapp’s statement exhorting Avalos to talk to her (i.e., initiating an encounter), after he said he wanted an attorney, was not allowed under Miranda,” referring to the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guarantees criminal suspects the right to counsel.

Anaheim police spokesman Sgt. Shane Carringer responded, “We disagree with the conclusion reached but respect the court’s ruling.”

Trapp is among Orange County’s most celebrated detectives. She was named one of the Orange County Register’s Most Influential People in 2014 after playing a pivotal role in solving the serial killings of four young women, leading to the conviction of two men.

In the Avalos case, 19-year-old Angel Rivera was shot in the head on May 25, 2012, near an Anaheim liquor store. Rivera was dating Avalos’ ex-girlfriend.

Avalos, then 18, and co-defendant George Galvan approached Rivera and allegedly fired a total of four shots, according to the ruling.

The duo drove away in Galvan’s car. The next morning, investigators working on a tip arrested Avalos while he was driving away from his home. Police searched Avalos’ bedroom and found a pair of shoes, one of them containing 44 rounds of .38-caliber ammunition. Police also found a receipt from a Del Taco restaurant located near the crime scene. The time stamp on the receipt was just after the time of the shooting.

During police questioning, Avalos was instructed to remove his clothes for forensic purposes and was given a paper gown. He complained repeatedly that he was cold, according to the appellate decision.

Trapp was one of two detectives who separately interviewed Avalos. She repeatedly referred to the suspect as “mijo,” Spanish for “my son.”

After about five hours, Avalos asked to speak to an attorney and was taken out of the interrogation room. But he later requested to again talk with detectives after spending the night in a holding cell, apparently wearing the same paper gown from the day before. Avalos ultimately told investigators he shot Rivera in self-defense.

He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2019 and sentenced to 40 years to life in prison. He remains incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison. His alleged accomplice, Galvan, was acquitted.

In their ruling, appellate justices noted that Avalos appeared confused during questioning about the role of lawyers and detectives. They also noted that he was in high school with no record of prior arrests.

“We find Avalos did not make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent Miranda waiver prior to the second interview,” justices said. “Further, given the detective’s statement encouraging Avalos to speak to her because she cared about him getting his ‘story the right way out’ — after he had invoked the right to counsel — it appears the detective, rather than Avalos, initiated the second interview.”

Justices said that after invoking his right to an attorney, a suspect may later change his mind, but the police cannot prompt or encourage a suspect to change his mind.

“Detective Trapp’s statement purporting to care about Avalos getting his story ‘the right way out,’ had no conceivable purpose other than to encourage Avalos to continue to talk to her” without the presence of counsel, said the decision. “Certainly, police can engage in any number of tactics designed to persuade, encourage, or even trick a Mirandized suspect into continuing to communicate. Ordinarily, these tactics are perfectly acceptable … however, once Avalos invoked the right to counsel, everything changed.”

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case to determine if murder charges will be refiled.