United States v. Capers
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24516
2d Cir.2010Background
- Capers, a USPS employee, was suspected of stealing money orders; inspectors staged a sting at Capers’ facility and intercepted him after the money-order envelope alarm sounded.
- Capers was first questioned in a supervisor’s office without a Miranda warning, during which he admitted to handling the money orders.
- Capers was then transported to the Bronx DMU and questioned again for 30–40 minutes before a Miranda warning was given; he signed a waiver and confessed in writing after the warning.
- The district court suppressed Capers’ post-warning statements, finding no knowing and voluntary waiver and concluding the prewarning interrogation undermined Miranda rights.
- The government appealed, arguing the post-warning statements were admissible under Elstad and Carter; Capers argued a Seibert-based deliberate two-step strategy violated Miranda.
- The Second Circuit affirmed suppression, holding the police used a deliberate two-step interrogation without adequate curative steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used a deliberate two-step interrogation to undermine Miranda. | Capers argues Seibert control requires suppression. | The government contends Elstad governs unless deliberate strategy proven. | Deliberateness shown; two-step interrogation violated Miranda. |
| Who bears the burden to prove deliberateness in two-step interrogations. | Capers asserts the government bears burden; district court erred. | Hoti contends lack of deliberate intent: government not required to prove deliberate intent. | Burden on the government to prove lack of deliberateness by preponderance. |
| Whether curative measures were taken to remedy the Miranda violation before post-warning questioning. | Capers contends no curative steps were taken. | Hoti’s conduct not adequately shown to be deliberate; potential curative measures unnecessary. | No sufficient curative measures; post-warning statements excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (holding postwarning statements may be admissible if voluntary)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two-step interrogation exception; plurality and Kennedy concurrence debated admissibility)
- United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2007) (applies Seibert exception for deliberate two-step strategy in this circuit)
- United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2006) (multifactor approach to deliberateness; used for context)