United States v. Hollins
2:17-cr-20147
| W.D. Tenn. | Apr 16, 2018Background
- Defendant De’Lewis Hollins was indicted for assault/robbery of a postal carrier and possession of another’s identification/EBT card after his February 2, 2017 arrest.
- Hollins gave two written statements after being arrested and transported to an MPD precinct; he signed Miranda waiver forms before a written confession.
- At a suppression hearing, law enforcement witnesses testified no physical struggle occurred at arrest, no request for counsel was heard, and no officer observed or committed any assault during custody.
- Hollins testified he asked for an attorney while being driven to the precinct, was intoxicated/confused at times, and was struck by MPD detectives during a cigarette break, after which he confessed.
- Magistrate Judge Claxton found Hollins not credible and recommended denying the motion to suppress; the District Court reviewed the transcript de novo, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s credibility findings, and denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel | No violation; adversarial process had not begun so right had not attached | Interrogation in custody effectively invokes the right to counsel once in custody | Court: Right did not attach; Sixth Amendment claim denied |
| Fifth Amendment (Miranda waiver/request for counsel) | Officers advised Miranda, Hollins signed waivers; no credible request for counsel | Hollins says he asked for an attorney while transported and waivers were not understood | Court: Magistrate’s credibility finding favored officers; waivers valid; claim denied |
| Fourteenth Amendment (coerced confession/physical abuse) | Officers testified no assault; no observed injuries; confession voluntary | Hollins alleges detectives punched him during a break, overcoming will to confess | Court: Credibility and photo evidence do not support assault; confession admissible; claim denied |
| Fruit of the poisonous tree (suppression of evidence) | N/A (prosecution) | If constitutional violations occurred, evidence should be suppressed | Court: No constitutional violations found; exclusionary rule does not apply; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel generally attaches only after the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (framework on right to counsel in critical stages)
- Raddatz v. United States, 447 U.S. 662 (1980) (district court reviews magistrate judge’s factual findings de novo and may defer to magistrate’s credibility assessments)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree/exclusionary-rule principles)
- Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2002) (deference to magistrate judge’s credibility determinations when the magistrate personally observed witnesses)