United States v. Danny Ferguson
970 F.3d 895
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background:
- April 7–8, 2015: attempted arson at Christy Pierce’s trailer on Pine Ridge Reservation; burn marks and a gasoline/kerosene-smelling bottle were found.
- Pierce and her son Samuel Rios observed Danny Ferguson drive onto the property; Rios saw Ferguson place a blanket into the trailer insulation and observed the blanket ignite; both identified Ferguson by hair, motorcycle, and jacket.
- FBI agents interviewed Ferguson at his home; Ferguson agreed to a polygraph at the Justice Center, signed a polygraph authorization form that repeated rights (including right to counsel and to stop), and twice left and voluntarily returned during the session.
- Tribal advocate John Witt (not a licensed attorney) sought to attend the polygraph; agents refused. After the polygraph, Agent Goble said Ferguson ‘‘failed’’; during post‑polygraph questioning Ferguson made incriminating statements and repeatedly said he wanted to "plead the Fifth."
- District court denied suppression (found Ferguson not in custody and statements voluntary); jury convicted Ferguson of attempted arson for April 8 (acquitted as to April 7); sentence: time served and supervised release. Ferguson appealed denial of suppression and sufficiency of evidence; the court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ferguson "in custody" (Miranda) during the polygraph/post‑polygraph questioning? | Ferguson: the setting, refusals to allow Witt, and deceptive tactics created custody and required Miranda warnings. | Government: Ferguson was told participation was voluntary, he was free to leave, he left twice and returned voluntarily, so not in custody. | Court: Not in custody; Miranda did not attach. |
| Was Ferguson entitled to have his tribal advocate present as counsel? | Ferguson: Witt functioned as counsel/advocate and denial violated right to counsel. | Government: Right to counsel only applies if Miranda rights attached; court need not decide tribal advocate status. | Court: Declined to decide whether Witt qualified; because no custody, right to counsel had not attached. |
| Did agents ignore Ferguson’s invocation of the right to remain silent? | Ferguson: he repeatedly said he wanted to "plead the Fifth" and to stop, but agents continued questioning. | Government: Agents informed him he could stop and repeatedly reminded him of his rights; interview ended when he insisted. | Court: No Miranda violation; agents ceased after he reiterated desire to stop; no suppression. |
| Were Ferguson’s statements involuntary (coercion or limited cognition)? | Ferguson: low cognitive functioning and repeated questioning rendered statements involuntary/coerced. | Government: form explained rights, he understood freedom to leave, took breaks, left, returned—statements were voluntary. | Court: Statements were voluntary; no coercive police activity that extorted statements. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict of attempted arson? | Ferguson: identifications unreliable, alibi evidence, and no proof the trailer ignited. | Government: incriminating statements plus eyewitness identification and forensic findings support attempt conviction. | Court: Evidence sufficient to support conviction for the April 8 attempted arson. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBrun v. United States, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (Miranda custody inquiry centers on freedom to depart)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (Miranda limited to custodial interrogation)
- Griffin v. United States, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (six‑factor test for custody determination)
- Kelly v. United States, 329 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2003) (Miranda rights attachment analysis)
- Vinton v. United States, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for voluntariness of statements)
- Hill v. United States, 750 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Ziesman v. United States, 409 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Giboney v. United States, 863 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (constitutional rule requiring warnings for custodial interrogation)