United States v. Michael Barnes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7785
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- FBI investigated drug trafficking by Esthepen Pebenito; informant Craig arranged drug pickup from Barnes at the Anchorage airport.
- Barnes’s parole officer, Andrea Kuckertz, arranged a meeting with Barnes; Barnes was escorted into a secure area and searched.
- Agents confronted Barnes with evidence and played a recording of a Craig phone call before any Miranda warnings were given.
- Barnes admitted involvement after hearing the recording; Miranda warnings were then provided and he waived.
- District court denied suppression and Barnes was convicted of methamphetamine distribution at the Anchorage airport.
- Panel reversed due to custodial interrogation and two-step interrogation under Seibert; mid-stream warnings were ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the interrogation custodial for Miranda purposes? | United States contends Barnes was not in custody. | Barnes argues custodial interrogation occurred in a police-dominated setting. | Barnes was in custody during the interrogation. |
| Did the two-step interrogation violate Seibert? | United States asserts no deliberate two-step strategy. | Barnes argues deliberate two-step interrogation was used to bypass Miranda. | Yes, deliberate two-step interrogation occurred. |
| Were mid-stream Miranda warnings effective to cure the error? | United States contends warnings cured the initial interrogation. | Barnes argues mid-stream warnings were insufficient to cure the taint. | Warnings were not effective to cure the prior custodial interrogation. |
| Was the erroneous admission of the confession harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | United States argues the error was harmless. | Barnes argues the confession was central and not harmless. | Not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two-step interrogation prohibition)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (custody determination framework)
- United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2006) (framework for evaluating mid-stream warnings)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (penalty/voluntariness considerations in interrogation)
- Kim v. United States, 292 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors for custody and interrogation analysis)