Ralph C. FELTROP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BOWERSOX, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-2738
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 1, 1996. Decided Aug. 8, 1996.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 16, 1996.*
91 F.3d 1178
* Chief Judge Richard S. Arnold and Judge McMillian would grant the suggestion.
In Postma, this court was faced with an appeal by a couple who, having lost an agricultural foreclosure action in state court, filed a complaint in federal court against the foreclosing bank advancing various causes of action and alleging violations of Iowa and federal law. Id. at 161. The district court dismissed the action on the authority of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 162. In affirming the district court‘s decision, this court concluded that “the current [federal] claims can succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongly dеcided the foreclosure action.” Id. A similar conclusion is compelled in the current case. During their course of dealing a dispute arose between the parties as to how much the Goetzmans owed Agribank. The Goetzmans filed suit in state court seeking a determination of the same. What better opportunity or forum existed for them to raise the issue thаt $216,387.00 of the debt in dispute may have been discharged in bankruptcy? Naturally, if the debt or a substantial portion thereof was discharged, the issue should have been vigorously raised in the state court action.
The Goetzmans argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should not be employed to bar their current action because they contend they were not givеn a fair opportunity to be heard on the merits and that they have a procedural due process right to the same. We disagree. Application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not depend on a final judgment on the merits of an issue, Charchenko, 47 F.3d at 983 n. 1, nor is there a procedural due process exception to the doctrine. Postma, 74 F.3d at 162 n. 3. If the state trial сourt erred in the extent it addressed the issue the Goetzmans are now pressing, relief was available in the appellate courts of Minnesota. None being forthcoming, the Goetzmans cannot now bring an action in federal court which would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling. Charchenko, 47 F.3d at 983, citing Landers Seed Co. v. Champaign Nat‘l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 62, 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994).6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasоns indicated, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Richard H. Sindel, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.
Before FAGG, HEANEY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
Missouri death row inmate Ralph C. Feltrop was convicted of murdering and dismembering his live-in girlfriend, Barbara Ann Roam. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, and the denial of Feltrop‘s petition for state post-conviction reliеf, in State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991). We later affirmed the denial of his numerous claims for federal habeas corpus relief. Feltrop v. Delo, 46 F.3d 766 (8th Cir.1995).
In rejecting Feltrop‘s claim that the police violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), we gave deference to the state court determination that he was not “in custody” prior to receiving Miranda warnings, consistent with prior Eighth Circuit cases construing
A. The Incriminating Statements. Prior to trial, Feltrop moved to suppress incriminating statements he made to police on the night of March 23, 1987. The trial court held a suppression hearing at which law enforcement officers testified to the events in question. The parties divided Feltrop‘s incriminating statements into three categories: first, a statement that he tried to take a knife from Roam‘s hands, which caused the officers to interrupt the interview and give Feltrop Miranda warnings; second, his subsequent description of the killing and dismembering, after which he led police to the secluded farm pond where he had disposed of Roam‘s head, hands, and feet; and third, a videotaped cоnfession Feltrop gave after returning from the farm pond. The trial court admitted the first statement because it was non-custodial, admitted the subsequent statements because they were made voluntarily following Miranda warnings, but suppressed those portions of the videotaped confession that followed Feltrop‘s request that a lawyer be present. At trial, Feltrop renewed his motion to suppress all his statements, based upon the officers’ trial and suppression hearing testimony.1 The trial court denied that motion, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed.
B. The Relevant Custody Facts. In conducting our de novo review of the custody issue, the first task is to determine the factual circumstances surrounding the questioning—to set the scene and reconstruct the players’ lines and actions. “State-court findings on these scene- and action-setting questions attract a presumption of correctness under
On March 16, 1987, shortly after a dismembered female torso was found in St. Charles County, Feltrop visited the Sheriff‘s Department in nearby Jefferson County, where he and Roam resided, and reported to Sergeant Speidel that Roam had been missing for a week. One week later, Sgt. Speidel decided that the torso found in St. Charles County could fit the missing person description of Roam, and that a police composite of a man seen near the torso‘s site resembled Feltrop. The Missouri Supreme Court described the subsequent events as follows:
The record shows that late in the afternoon on March 23, 1987, Sgt. Speidel contacted the St. Charles County Sheriff‘s Department, who asked him to arrange an interview with [Feltrop]. After contacting [Feltrop], Sgt. Speidel went to [Feltrop‘s] house. [Feltrop] then followed Sgt. Speidel to the station. Sgt. Speidel and [Feltrop] arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m., and [Feltrop] waited in the watch commander‘s office until the St. Charles officers arrived between 10:30 and 11:30 p.m. Sheriff Eubinger and Sgt. Kaiser questioned [Feltrоp] from 11:45 p.m. to 1:10 a.m. The officers asked [Feltrop] about his relationship with the victim, why he reported her missing, and where he thought she might be. During this time [Feltrop] seemed tired and emotional, and cried periodically. Finally, the officers asked [Feltrop] whether he was a Christian and whether he would tell the truth. [Feltrop] then told the officers that he had “tried to take the knife away.” At that time [he] became a suspect and was read his Miranda rights, which he waived. Questioning resumed. [Feltrop] related his version of the events. He claimed he killed Roam in self-defense. Later [Feltrop] led the officers to the remaining body parts. Using this information, the officers obtained a warrant to search [Feltrop‘s] home and seized evidence found therein.
* * * * * * [The questioning] officers engaged in no coercive conduct. They made no promises or threats. [Feltrop] was given drinks and opportunities to use the restroom and to take breaks. Although the room in which [he] was interviewed was small, there is no indication that [Feltrop] was psychologically or otherwise coerced as a result of being in close quarters.
* * * * * *
[Feltrop] voluntarily followed Sgt. Speidel to the station. At all times prior to his making the incriminating statement, [he] was free to depart.
803 S.W.2d at 12-13. We have carefully reviewed the state court record and conclude that these facts must be presumed correct. We note that Feltrop did not seek an evidentiary hearing in federal court tо revisit these events.
C. The Custody Question of Law. Feltrop made the statement that he “tried to take the knife away” from Roam before he was given Miranda warnings. That statement is inadmissible if he was in custody at the time he made it, because Miranda warnings must be given “where there has been such a restriction on a person‘s freedom as to render him ‘in custody.‘” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Whether Feltroр was “in custody” is determined by an objective test—viewing the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable person in Feltrop‘s position have considered his freedom of action restricted to the degree associated with a formal arrest. See Thompson, U.S. at — & n. 13, 116 S.Ct. at 465-66 & n. 13; California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983). That the questioning takes place in a police station is relevant but not controlling. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714. Moreover, the subjective undisclosed beliefs of Feltrop and the questioning officers regarding custody are irrelevant. See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, —, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1529, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). Thompson requires us to apply this objective test de novo to the facts found by the state courts.
Feltrop came voluntarily to the Jefferson County police station to be interviewed by the St. Charles Cоunty investigators. For the first two hours after he arrived, Feltrop waited in the small watch commander‘s office with Sgt. Speidel, while Speidel attended to his unrelated watch commander‘s duties. Speidel testified at trial:
Q Was [Feltrop] able to walk freely around the office?
A No. We have restricted areas in the office. But, he was free to move. If he wanted to leave, he could have.
(Emphasis added.) Speidel did not question Feltrop. This portion of the time Feltrop spent at the station was clearly non-custodial.
It is easy to say in hindsight that Feltrop was an obvious target of the investigation. But until he made an incriminating statement about 1½ hours into the interview, there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the investigators had not curtailed his freedom of action to a degree associated with formal arrest. When Feltrop made that first obscure but clearly incriminating statement—he “tried to take the knife away” from Roam—the investigators immediately gave him Miranda warnings and a lengthy break in the questioning. In these circumstances, although the issue is close, we conclude that Feltrop was not “in custody” prior to receiving those warnings.
D. The Harmless Error Question. Feltrop not only argues that his first incriminating statement is inadmissible, but he also asserts that his later confession must be suppressed as the tainted fruit of that poisonous tree. We disagree. In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1293, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), the Supreme Court held, “Though Miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement [made after Miranda warnings are given] should turn ... solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.” Feltrop‘s subsequent description of the killing and his decision to lead police to the remainder of Roam‘s body “were not the product of unconstitutional coercion.” 46 F.3d at 772. Those statements and conduct are admissible and were infinitely more incriminating than his initial incriminating statement. Therefore, any Miranda error in admitting that initial statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 320, 322-23 (8th Cir.1994).
For the foregoing reasons, we reinstate our prior decision affirming the district court‘s denial of Feltrop‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
It is clear that I conceded too much in my original dissent. I agreed with the original majority that the state court‘s finding that Feltrop was not in custody when he made his first incriminating statement was entitled to a presumption of correctness. Now, in light of the Supreme Court‘s recent holding that this “ultimate ‘in custody’ determination” is subject to de novo review, Thompson v. Keohane, U.S. —, —, 116 S.Ct. 457, 465, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), I even more resolutely believe that police оbtained Feltrop‘s initial statement in violation of his Miranda rights. In my view, we must reverse the United States District Court and direct that court to remand to the state court with directions to release Feltrop or to give him a new trial within a reasonable period of time.
In my view, the essential, undisputed missing facts are as follows:
- Sergeant Speidel suspected that Feltrop was involved in Barbara Roam‘s death when he contacted Feltrop for questioning. (Trial Tr. at 124.) The Missouri Supreme Court was either speaking hyper-technically or simply wrong in stating that Feltrop only became a suspect after he offered his initial admission that a struggle occurred between he and the victim. See State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Mo.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991). It is undisputed that Sergeant Speidel connected Feltrop, who had recently reported his girlfriend missing to Sergeant Speidel, with a composite drawing of a person seen near the site where an unidentified torso was discovered in St. Charles County. (Trial Tr. at 998–1001, 1004, 1019.) Sergeant Speidel even testified that he suspected Feltrop committed a crime related to his girlfriend‘s disappearance.
- Sergeant Speidel reported his suspicions to the St. Charles Sheriff‘s Department, who asked him to contact Feltrop and arrange a meeting between their investigators and Feltrop. (Id. at 1005.) Sergeant Speidel went to Feltrop‘s home several times, but could not find him. (Id.) He then left his business card with a neighbor, asking that Feltrop call him. (Id. at 1007.) Later that night, Sergeant Speidel returned to Feltrop‘s home and told him that the only way he could obtain any infоrmation about his missing girlfriend was if he went with Sergeant Speidel to the police station that night. (Id. at 1021-22). Feltrop drove his car to the Jefferson County Sheriff‘s Department, escorted by Sergeant Speidel. (Id. at 1022).
- When Feltrop arrived at the Jefferson County Sheriff‘s Department, he was placed in a small, nine-foot-by-nine-foot room and kept there for at least two hours until the St. Charles County investigators arrived. (Trial Tr. 125-26). During this time, he was never told he was free to leave.
- The interview lasted from approximately 11:45 p.m. until 1:10 a.m. or 1:20 a.m. Near the end of the interview, Kaiser, a St. Charles County investigator, told Feltrop that he was pretty sure the severed torso that had been found in St. Charles County was Roam and he wanted to know how the torso got therе. (Trial Tr. at 1048–50).
In addition to omitting essential facts, the majority mischaracterizes several conclusions of the Missouri Supreme Court as factual findings. For example, the state court‘s determinations that (1) Feltrop voluntarily followed Sergeant Speidel to the station and (2) he was free to leave at all times prior to making the incriminating statement are cоnclusions, not findings of fact. The findings go well beyond “basic, primary, or historical ... recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” See Thompson, U.S. at —, 116 S.Ct. at 464 (internal quotations omitted). The state court‘s ultimate conclusions are not entitled to a presumption of correctness and we must review them de novo.
When all relevant facts are considered and when the legal conclusions of the state court are set aside, it becomes apparent that no reasonable person in Feltrop‘s position would have believed that he was free to leave and that his Miranda rights were violated. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
GERALD W. HEANEY
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE