United States v. Moore
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3507
2d Cir.2012Background
- Moore sought to suppress a statement made in a police lockup without Miranda warnings and the gun recovered from him; later, after warnings, he gave a post-warning confession and was federally charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- An initial unwarned interview focused narrowly on locating the gun, conducted by a different officer than the later interview.
- The gun was located and retrieved, after which Moore was given a warned interview with detectives and ATF agent Campanell.
- Moore invoked police cooperation, read and signed a waiver form, and provided information about the gun, the carjacking, and related matters; he refused a written statement without counsel.
- The district court suppressed the unwarned statement but not the gun and denied suppression of the post-warning confession; Moore entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo the Miranda issue and applied Elstad rather than Seibert, concluding the post-warning confession was voluntary and not obtained by a deliberate two-step strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-warning confession was unlawfully obtained under Seibert analysis | Moore argues two-step method aimed to bypass Miranda | Moore contends deliberate two-step tactic; confession barred | Post-warning confession admissible under Elstad; no deliberate two-step found |
| Whether the interrogation violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Right attached before federal charges; interrogation occurred pre-arraignment | Right to counsel did not attach for the federal offense prior to initiation | Sixth Amendment right did not attach to the federal charge at issue; suppression denied |
| Whether Moore’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached to the state charges and affected the federal case | State charging information could trigger attachment | Attachment not triggered for the state charges before arraignment; offense-specific rule applies | Attachment did not occur for state charges; not applicable to the federal charge under Blockburger principles |
| Whether the two offenses (state and federal) are the same for Sixth Amendment purposes | States’ firearm-use element overlaps with federal felon-in-possession | Blockburger requires different elements; offenses are distinct | Offenses are separate; Blockburger analysis supports separate attachment and prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (admissibility of post-warning statements if voluntary and not coerced)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (deliberate two-step interrogation violates Fifth Amend.)
- United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2007) (joins Seibert approach; two-step deliberate strategy inquiry)
- Capers v. United States, 627 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2010) (adopted totality-of-the-evidence approach to deliberate two-step analysis)
- United States v. Mills, 412 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2005) (right to counsel attachment pre-arraignment in certain state contexts)