Stewart v. United States

Group Riggs projects for the Carlisle Appellant, pursuing. STEWART,

had been M. Shawn argues consulting contract Obelisk Obelisk, Riggs all and

was at times between STATES, Appellee. UNITED Rahim, Riggs and and thus that between No. 93-CF-620. earnings Riggs’ Rahim’s breach own any might duty were irrelevant Obelisk Appeals. Court of District of Columbia purposes, mitigate. practical For all Argued Feb. consulting Rahim’s Obelisk’s 21, 1995. Decided Dec. indistinguishable. Rahim services founder, president, em- Obelisk’s

ployee throughout corporate exis- Obelisk’s wholly and his owned

tence. Rahim wife regarded Riggs employees Rahim

Obelisk. egos, as alter and there is no Obelisk provided

indication that Obelisk services period clients that Rahim

other sixty eighty working hours each week Riggs. that, Riggs’

The record also shows but for Obelisk, Ra-

termination of the contract with engage

him would not have been able to banking projects of the merchant under pursued the Car- contract later issuing mitigation in Group.

lisle (in

struction, judge expressly relied the trial words) upon judge’s that “Ra- evidence doing pretty

him’s much what Carlisle doing injured Riggs.”

he’s Gains possible by

party in other transactions made may mitigate

a defendant’s breach used damages. See 5 ARTHURL. Corbin, Corbin (1964); § at 256 Macke on CONTRACTS Inc., Gaithersburg, Co. v. Pizza 259 Md. (1970).

479, 270 A.2d While effect, Riggs

contract with was still Rahim precluded completing from

would have been Group transactions for Carlisle $100,000.

generated mitigation instruc accordingly proper.

tion was

Affirmed. Kiersh, Washington, appel- R.

Steven The officers took the homicide squad Upon lant. offices at 300 Indiana Avenue. there, being arrival advised Mary Rodriguez, D. Assistant United rights, indicating PD Stewart executed a Holder, Attorney, States with whom Eric H. rights.2 that he waived his The PD was Jr., Attorney, United States and John R. completed p.m. 12:05 Fisher, III, Roy MeLeese, L. W. Ronald Walutes, Jr., Staley, and Renate D. Assistant gave Young biographical brief, Attorneys, United States “prose- PD information for the the MPD appellee. report.” cution When Detective willing asked whether Stewart was to make a FARRELL, RUIZ, Before and KING statement, however, Stewart indicated Judges. Associate he did not to In wish make statement. by court, response to the trial RUIZ, Judge: Associate Young Detective testified that understood him, willing that Stewart talk was to to but Shawn Stewart was convicted of second about not the crime. armed, degree possession murder while of a violence, during firearm a car- crime of and approximately p.m., pa- At 3:30 after the rying pistol a without a license.1 trial perwork completed in had been the homicide court denied to suppress Stewart’s motion a offices, squad Young Detective started to police confession he made to the after his take Stewart to central eellblock presentment assign- but arrest before and building’s fingerprinting basement for of ment counsel. The confession was subse- photographing. As Stewart and Detective quently during into admitted evidence Stew- offices, Young squad’s left the saw De- trial. art’s Because we find that the Treadwell, tective Edwin of another member obtained Stewart’s of confession violation the homicide branch. Detective Treadwell his Fifth to Amendment remain silent had worked of case since the date and that during use of the confession trial homicide, and knew that a sus- Stewart was error, was harmless we reverse. pect. known Detective Treadwell had personally

Stewart a since Stewart was little boy. Stewart and Detective Treadwell be- I. church, longed to the same United House The murder of which Stewart was convict- Prayer People, of All mem- and had been early morning ed occurred hours of bers that church for their entire lives. 30, 1992, May at the L corner 7th and Detective Treadwell also knew Stewart’s Streets, Northwest. Phineas Detective family; child, as a Detective Treadwell had Young of Metropolitan Depart- Police baby-sat grandmother. Stewart’s squad assigned ment homicide as lead accompanied Treadwell investigator. Detective Detec- July On on the basis Young to tive and Stewart the eellblock. Young’s complaint, Superior Detective during trip Sometime Detective Tread- Court issued a warrant for Stewart’s arrest. day, Young, At a.m. well asked whether had 10:30 the next Detective Stewart response, Young accompanied statement. Detective in- by another uni- detective and a officer, formed dicated that Stewart had chosen not to arrested Stewart at parents home where he lived with his a few statement. There was further no conversa- among blocks from the scene of the crime. tion three of them. jury acquitted attempted response: you 1. The Stewart of rob- tee indicates "Have or read bery while rights? armed. you warnings your read had you rights? you these Do wish to Do understand by Metropoli- “PD 47” is form used you any questions? willing answer Are to an- Department tan Police waiver or record asser- attorney any questions having swer without rights. following tion of Miranda questions, It contains present?” followed boxes in which arres- cellblock, of his not readvise Stewart and Treadwell did

At the Detective Treadwell or spoke privately.3 Detective Tread- either before Stewart constitutional following gave well account the sub- the conversation. conversation, which the trial

stance cell- leaving the central After Stewart court credited: block, and Detective Detective Treadwell encouragement. gave I him] words [I as- departed on another Young the station him make telling that we all mistakes signment, until late that and did not return feel about situation. bad this meantime, re- evening. In the told him that the situation that was cellblock, without ac- in the central mained situation, good but that was in was not consultation with an parents cess to judging that I him a situation returned, attorney. De- the detectives When else, meaning that I felt no one other up brought tective members, by, judge him ba- church squad Young tes- homicide office. Detective sically telling upon him that our based first what Stew- tified that at he was unsure other, teachings judge we don’t each talk to Treadwell art wanted keep up, strong and to his head immediately about. Detective Treadwell in. remember what we believe Stewart, In re- happened?” ‘What Treadwell, According to when he Detective Nei- sponse, began his confession. Stewart referring he to the case. said “mistakes” was con- took notes while Stewart ther detective speaking to he want- He said that Stewart only It was some time Stewart fessed. standing ed let him know “that to he wasn’t begun had his confession that Detective alone, support group, that there still a was Young questioning took and started over the meaning the church.” Detective Treadwell to the confession onto PD 118 transcribe offered, picture accepted, and Stewart also forms, to forms used the MPD memorial- bishop, of which Treadwell their Detective ize custodial statements. produced his from identification folder. De- is in four Stewart’s confession contained bishop the tective Treadwell testified that forms, PD which were filled out between 118 to members of their church source of Young p.m. and 12:49 a.m. Detective 11:45 you strength, “someone that are in when process questioning the estimated that you always go can He trouble to.” said twenty-five twenty or Stewart started around picture provided give he the to “in- Stewart was minutes earlier. Detective Treadwell spiration encouragement.” present Stew- the entire time witnessed he Detective Treadwell knew could not forms, On each the Stew- art’s statement. long talk Stewart because Stewart had rights. his signified art that he waived No processed by to personnel. cellblock waiv- presented as to when the evidence was together, While Detective Tread- completed portion er form was he interest- well asked Stewart whether was Stewart, questions or whether waiver any him. talking ed in more with Stewart statement, to him.4 In his were ever read replied that was. homi- that he was back Stewart said suppression hearing, At Detective to talk to Mr. office wanted “[b]eeause cide his conversation Treadwell said that felt Treadwell.” their was as a member of with Stewart motion, suppression denying He not as a officer. church and initially no trial court found that he believed there were re- testified give a written statement and chosen to strictions Stewart. Detective asking this present any 4. came evidence The closest did following question direct examination was in initiated the who conversation. cellblock, of Detective Treadwell: upon reaching Detec- testified that presence Young your Q. went a desk to hand over some tive ever [Stewart] Did Young any rights? paperwork. While was at the of his Detective waive said, "Shawn, desk, come No. Detective Treadwell A. added.) (Emphasis you and me for a minute.” here let talk product “personal the choice was a of his procedures randa until it was shown other at preference.” The court found that warnings least as effective. Id. The subject dropped then altogether. required prerequi waivers are Miranda The court further found that Stewart did not any sites to the admission of statement of the make a “blanket assertion him, against regardless defendant to be used remain silent and he did information to whether the statement fact volun police except for a written statement tary. Michigan Mosley, U.S. 99- about offense.” 321, 324-325, L.Ed.2d Miranda, (1975); supra, 384 U.S. conversation, Regarding the cellblock S.Ct. at 1628-1629. trial court found that “[w]hen Detective ultimately approached Treadwell the defen-

dant his conversation did not consist of procedures require The Miranda interrogation that, about the interrogation, murder incident. It before an individual in purely personal of a nature and custody the court regarding be warned gives full credence to Detective Miranda, Treadwell’s and to silent counsel. su description of the nature conversa- pra, 467-68, 471, 86 S.Ct. at tion.” The trial court specifically found 1624-25, interrogation may Before an highly Detective Treadwell was a credible counsel, begin in suspect the absence of witness. affirmatively must have waived the counsel. Id. at 1625-26. respect With Similarly, an affirmative waiver taken, which Stewart’s confession to remain silent must be Id. at obtained. trial court found that “[i]t was after Mr. (“[A] 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628 valid waiver will Stewart indicated on a willingness his own to presumed simply from the silence of give any questions a written statement that warnings the accused after are or sim of him about the murder incident ply from that the fact a was in fact confession specifically. The court that finds this was a obtained.”); eventually 468, see id. at 86 specific change of by mind the defendant and (“[T]he S.Ct. at warning [regarding 1625 the any that in event actually no statement was right to remain will the silent] show individu him taken from until he had been read his interrogators al that prepared his to are rights again.” specifical- once court trial recognize privilege his should he choose to ly found that the honored Stewart’s it.”). exercise bears preference giving for not a written statement “heavy of establishing burden” a valid waiv and that he chose to a statement “for his 475, er. Id. at 86 personal S.Ct. at own reasons.” warnings Once given, have been the subse- II. quent procedure is clear. If the individual Arizona, 436, In Miranda v. 384 U.S. manner, any prior indicates in at time 1602, (1966), 16 L.Ed.2d 694 during questioning, to or he that wishes to Supreme Court “concluded that without silent, remain interrogation must proper safeguards process of in-custody point cease. At this he has shown interrogation persons suspected or ac intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment inherently cused compelling of crime contains privilege; any statement taken after the pressures which work to undermine the indi person privilege his invokes cannot be oth- compel to vidual’s will resist and to him to er than product compulsion, subtle speak he would where not otherwise do so right Without to cut otherwise. off 467, freely.” U.S. at 384 86 S.Ct. at 1624. questioning, setting in-custody inter- Consequently, the Court established certain rogation operates on the individual to over- procedural safeguards protect rights to producing come in free choice statement recognized of the accused. The Court privilege after the has been once invoked. require the Constitution did not adherence to solution, Miranda, 473-74, any particular required supra, but 384 86 adher U.S. at S.Ct. omitted). (footnote procedures ence to the established Mi- 1627-28 Dell’Aria, v. spected.” United States and under what circumstances When (E.D.N.Y.1993). 837, may F.Supp. sus resume after the right his pect has invoked remain silent reviewing a trial court’s denial When Supreme Court was addressed motion, may not suppression of a we disturb Mosley. The in that Court case stated if are findings a trial court’s of fact admissibility made in re statements supported substantial evidence. interrogation subsequent sponse to to invoca McKeamer, 17-305(a); supra, § D.C.Code “depends tion remain silent question at 351. The whether A.2d Miranda, ‘right under on whether to cut his scrupulously hon rights were defendant’s ” questioning’ ‘scrupulously off honored.’ ored, con including police conduct whether Mosley, 423 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. at 326 law, “interrogation,” question is a stitutes Miranda, 474, 479, 86 (quoting 384 U.S. at States, Derrington v. United however. 1630). In McKeamer Unit McKeamer, (D.C.1985); su A.2d States, (D.C.1982), ed 452 A.2d 348 we noted Lee) 351; (Milton pra, A.2d at see also the four factors identified States, Davis 564 A.2d 34-42 v. United determining need be considered in wheth (D.C.1989) (discussing analysis applied to be rights “scrupu er defendant’s question is re ascertaining whether one lously honored”: ).5 viewed for clear error or de novo 1) They suspect orally are: ad- rights orally his ac- vised of and did he III. 2) them; knowledge imme- did appeal, present In Stewart concedes diately questioning and make no cease initially to counsel that he waived attempts to resume or ask him recon- contends, 3) (in remain silent. He sider; was there a sufficient break hours) subsequently invoked Mosley, two between the first failed remain silent and that detectives interrogations and second second scrupulously honor that invocation. performed different location response, contends that different officer about a different crime 4) never invoked his warnings given and were Miranda be- silent, did, if he Detective Tread- but that fore the second session. not “interro- conversation was well’s cellblock 351; States, Id. at 444 Wilson v. United gation”; claims that also (D.C.1982) 25, (same); A.2d 29 United States subsequently voluntarily initi- and Stewart (D.C.1981) Alexander, 42, v. 428 A.2d 49 during his con- interrogation ated which (same). “The envisioned a Court fession was obtained. case-by-case approach involving inquiry of custo- all facts We total of four instances into relevant to determine count interrogation, suspect’s re- three of them within rights whether the have been dial 101, 824, among 46 split We 469 105 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d note that there is a the federal U.S. (1984), comprehensive appropriate out method as to the re which set circuits standard for determining appropriate of re viewing trial standard court’s determination whether (and in) upon "interrogation” view this court’s conduct constituted similar to relied (Milton Davis, Lee) supra. Compare analysis purposes in of Miranda. United States hand, 199, Poole, (4th Cir.1992) ("sub Payne, opinion in on the other v. 954 F.2d 203 amended Poole, deference”) analysis, engaged in and its citation and United States v. no stantial 462, best, (“de novo”), amended, McConney cryptic is that in McCon 806 794 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.1986) ney ("clearly Circuit concluded that de novo errone the Ninth F.2d ous”) exigent Taylor, applied question whether review with United States v. 985 F.2d (1st Cir.1993) review”) entry justifying exist ("plenary a no-knock n. 5 and United circumstances Calisto, (3rd Payne ed. F.2d at 1205. reasoned States 838 F.2d Cir. v. 1988) review"). "necessarily depends weight inquiry ("plenary rea contextual” appears numerous to cata- authority defer on "circumstances ... too soned to be with the less Although logue.” those facts Taylor Cal- 954 F.2d ential standard of review. Both Davis-McConney approach, principally opinion in Poole are relevant to isto relied on the court, pertinent See prior in not exhaust the factors. Poole do to Poole's amendment. The turn, Davis, (cataloguing consider in v. 564 A.2d 36-37 relied on its decision United States (same). denied, (9th Cir.), ations); McConney, F.2d at 1201-02 McConney, cert. 728 F.2d 1195 approximately period brought squad nine-hour after Stewart was first to the homicide of- right Young specifically invoked his to remain silent. fice. After Detective re- information, giving biographical peatedly Stewart in- testified he understood Stewart right refusing ques- voked his to remain when to be silent first discuss the events interrogated fact, about the tion. In he offense Detective was not even certain that Young. interrogation place charges The second took Stewart wanted discuss the when Treadwell, brought upstairs the cellblock when he Detective Stewart to see Detective night. within an hour Stewart’s assertion of the Treadwell that It not until Stew- right silent, to remain with art actually speak response talked Stewart started to about religious question their shared values. That Detective Treadwell’s direct answering Young conversation ended with Stewart Stewart Detective decided that want- “yes” to Detective Treadwell’s invitation to ed to discuss the incident. continue their conversation later. The third light Young’s of Detective testimo interrogation eight occurred about hours la- ny, effectively we conclude Stewart as ter, completed processing Stewart’s right serted his to remain silent. We do not and the detectives had returned to the sta- need to address the trial court’s conclusion Young, upon tion. acting Detective the earli- that Stewart did not make a “blanket asser “yes” er obtained from Stewart Detective tion of his to remain silent.” Where during conversation, Treadwell the cellblock suspect officer understands has Treadwell,

took Stewart who silent, asserted his to remain the fact immediately him about the crime with- that someone else could other have believed giving out first Miranda warn- fresh wise, confused, or been is irrelevant. Then, ings. after Stewart to talk started crime, interrogated about he for the subjective perception Our on the reliance day, fourth time that when Detective interrogator of the is consistent took the contested written confession. All L.) (Robert rationale Davis United interrogations three occurred — States, -, duty time that were under scru- (1994). In L.Ed.2d 362 Davis defendant pulously to honor Stewart’s to remain expressly had been read his and had silent, concerned the same crime for which at -, waived them. Id. 114 S.Ct. at 2353. (and about had been arrested which interrogation, An a half hour and into his already interrogated had been Detec- said, “Maybe I the defendant Young), tive and included Detective Tread- lawyer.” In response, should talk ato Id. well; interrogations two of the last three if interrogators made it clear Young, included Detective lawyer, they stop. wanted a Id. The place same as the first asking said not defendant then that he was day, and occurred within minutes of each lawyer for a and that he did not want a conclude, other. based We cannot on this later, lawyer. An hour said “I think Id. record, police “scrupulously that the hon- anything I lawyer say want a before else.” right ored” Stewart’s to remain silent. point interrogation stopped. Id. At the that Id. A. Supreme only In Davis the held not Court booking interrogation appropriate interrogators that it was for the Relying findings, on the trial court’s to ask the defendant for clarification of his statement, request the contends that Stewart never but also that because the effectively right ambiguous, interrogators remain silent. for asserted to counsel was the at -, -, finding disregard The trial were court’s that Stewart’s asser free to it. Id. 2355, 114 tion of the to remain at 2356. reasoned silent limited S.Ct. The Court not, however, inquiry request sup written statements is as to whether a ported by objective substantial evidence. There was made is an one to “avoid difficulties provide any proof guidance no evidence introduced that at to officers and to at -, orally interrogations.” time conducting discussed the offense when he Id. Miranda, and the inter- expressed purpose of at 2355. The Court concern tile S.Ct. rogation violated standards. law enforcement and voiced effective “interrogation” for defined “police Supreme with officers must Court sympathy who Innis, ques actually they purposes not can in Rhode Island decide whether or Miranda -, 1682, suspect.” tion Id. at 64 L.Ed.2d 297 a S.Ct. 446 U.S. (1980). “interrogation” If to cease after an The Court held had statement, ambiguous “[p]olice officers would only express questioning, but refers judgment be forced to make difficult calls part of or actions on the also words in suspect fact wants a about whether (other normally at- police than those so, lawyer though even he hasn’t said with custody) tendant to arrest guess suppression if threat of reasonably likely to know are police should wrong.” Id. incriminating response from the an elicit portion this suspect. The latter defini- in The Court Davis was concerned primarily upon perceptions tion focuses predicament with the officers faced than the intent of suspect, rather equivocal ambiguous with A statements. police. This the fact that focus reflects police officer who understands a statement safeguards designed the Miranda as a clear invocation of the is in no custody suspect in an added vest position plead quandary such a should against po- protection coercive measure of designed from a to avoid it. benefit rule regard objective practices, lice without Moreover, suspect undergoing interroga police. proof underlying intent of the tion, required by Davis to make his assertion unambiguous of his the face of (footnotes Id. at 100 S.Ct. at 1689-90 questioning, continued also should not have omitted); Derrington, supra, also see may anticipate that a court find his state Innis). (discussing at 1326 A.2d ambiguous interrogator although his ments Innis, specifically the Court noted that does not.6 to direct Miranda was addressed questioning, psycho also to “the use of but

B. logical ploys, ‘posi[t]’ guilt of such as to 'the subject,’ to ‘minimize moral serious Detective Treadwell’s “words encouragement” on the offense,’ and ‘to cast blame ness of ” society.’ victim or on Id. 446 U.S. at the cellblock Miranda, (quoting supra, at 1689 S.Ct. Since we conclude that Stewart 1615) (emphasis silent, invoked his to remain from that (alteration added) original). The Court on, moment an were under obli noted, gation “scrupulously honor” in Stewart’s knowledge police may right. Applying Any vocation of standard Court, prescribed by concerning susceptibility of Supreme we find the unusual particular persua- to a form Detective Treadwell’s cellblock conver defendant might important factor deter- “interrogation” sation with Stewart was sion brief, cross-examination, proffer Stewart. On In its adverts to mation" from interview, during suppression hearing to the made admitted that the initial he that, witness, effect if recalled as a Detective changed not his mind and said did Stewart testify Young always would that Stewart was Young con- to a statement. Detective want questioning, responsive during but that when the request to that honored Stewart's not ceded options videotaped and written statements statements. make further him, explained to not were Stewart did want government’s proffer is im- We think that testified, however, Young either. Detective never in-custody interrogation is “[W]here material. involved, any question about the that Stewart answered that is no room for the contention there 1992; 30,May Young, in fact Detective events privilege is waived if the individual answers court, questioning from the that Stew- under said gives questions his or some information on some willing questions regarding to art was not answer invoking right prior to remain silent own his the event. Miranda, interrogated." supra, 384 U.S. at when testify Young When Detective was called 475-76, trial, got at 1628. he testified that he some "basic infer- S.Ct. mining police whether should have The contends that known that their or were words actions eellbloek conversation should be character reasonably likely incriminating to elicit an “casual,” “spontaneous” ized as and the response from suspect. judge “purely personal trial labelled it as of a that, record, think nature.” We on this 8, Id. 446 U.S. at 302 n. at 1690 n. properly can not conversation be character spontaneous, personal. ized as casual or Applying the Innis standard to record spontaneous was not conversation because is, in this case—that looking at the facts from Treadwell did Detective not talk to Stewart point of police view of what the should gone until after from the homicide known impact have would be of the state- squad’s then, only to the offices eellbloek and and, importantly, ments most how the sus- Young pres after Detective had left their perceived pect them —Detective Treadwell’s merely ence. Nor inci conversation interroga- eellbloek conversation constituted dental, because Detective specifi Treadwell tion. Detective Treadwell had known Stew- cally Stewart whether he be art since Stewart was a small child. He willing later, speak clearly inviting to him that religious knew Stewart was and in fact follow-up discussion. Detective Treadwell belonged to the same church knew him detective, experienced was an in homicide from church. As described Detective case, vestigating capable Stewart’s himself, Treadwell mini- words he used opportunity. exploiting an No conversation mized moral seriousness of Stewart’s al- concerning investigation a criminal between leged by saying crime would not Stewart suspect such a and a detective can said to be judged regarding be it. told He also Stewart “purely personal.” be Detective Treadwell’s “we all make His mistakes.” conversa- only can conversation characterized as designed tion was one admittedly that was preparatory step experi first of someone “encourage” a suspect fright- who had conducting interrogations. enced in In this ened, fright originally which had caused case, exactly knew what would silent, garrulous. Regard- Stewart to be not work. thought less of whether Detective Treadwell speaking he was as a churchmember fellow Detective Treadwell’s eellbloek Stewart’s, he either should knew or have interrogation was not a proper restart “inspiration” known his words of under factors. Stew likely response.7 to elicit an incriminating interrogation. art did initiate the There Stewart, fact that who had wanted lapse had been a short of time since speak Young ques- earlier when Detective right Stewart’s invocation to remain him, responded affirmatively tioned when silent. The concerned the Detective Treadwell he want- asked whether more, same talk crime. Detective Treadwell did ed to some shows that receptive rights, reli- readvise Stewart of his nor did Detective Treadwell’s Stew gious approach.8 art waive them.9 parties disputed 7. The Court in Innis noted that the term "incrim- have 9.The whether Detective inating response” any response means Treadwell knew that Stewart had asserted prosecution seeks to introduce at trial. silent. Detective testified n. S.Ct. at 1690 n. 5. had invoked his to remain actually silent. Detective What Treadwell Williams, Young regarding learned from Stew- Brewer 430 U.S. immaterial, (1977), art's be- invocation 51 L.Ed.2d 424 the "Christian buri- case, duty speech" cause officers directly applicable communicate al is not to this right-to- colleagues. See such information to their case because it was a Sixth Amendment McKeamer, Innis, supra, (reversing supra, 452 A.2d case. at 351 counsel 446 U.S. at however, noting, suppression at 1689. It is denial of motion where detective worth that Brewer, colleague appeal religious an failed to who conducted inter- sensibilities was inform improper questioning rogation appellant be found to done in had her when that earlier invoked rights). the absence of counsel. Miranda

c. will, tricked, cajoled into a of or waiver course, not vol- show the defendant did late-night questioning The back untarily privilege.”). waive his squad in the room request independent In the absence of an our inquiry does with Our not end day Stewart, interrogation the of the third that Detective Treadwell’s conver conclusion Mosley factors. improper under the was also improp in the constituted an sation cellblock preceded by interrogation The was interrogation. “It must be estab er waivers, began Detec- warnings or but response suspect’s incriminating lished question, hap- direct “What tive Treadwell’s the product the of words or actions on was in front interrogation occurred pened?” have part police of the should had inter- the same detectives who earlier reasonably an likely to elicit known were crime, him, the rogated concerned same Innis, incriminating response.” supra, 446 place at location his first took the same pres In the U.S. at day. only Mos- interrogation that same case, confession did not occur ent Stewart’s government’s ley weighing in the favor factor approximately eight until after Detec hours sec- lapse eight hours between the is the interrogation. cellblock tive Treadwell’s interrogations. If that alone ond and third Nevertheless, totality when reviewed the sufficient, Mosley the other circumstances, Stewart’s confession factors, including requirement that fresh the product questioning in violation of was a given, irrationally ren- warnings be would be the Miranda rule. Moreover, eight those dered immaterial. taking into ac- hours have to evaluated be Young brought Here, count the individual’s circumstances. upstairs to homicide from the cell- the office record, previous young man with no had to talk requested block because Stewart eight in the spending hours cellblock without ordinary In circum to Detective Treadwell. attorney, parents or an re- contact with his police scrupulously stances where sponded questioning the one unwarned person’s right question honored a off cut knew, person he a fellow church member who ing, request likely such would constitute him comfort and encour- had earlier offered case, however, In present waiver. Stew circumstances, lapse In agement. those response request art’s to Detective more, hours, eight without was insufficient dining improper Treadwell’s invitation satisfy Mosley. Therefore, interrogation we at the cellblock. operate cannot consider it to as a waiver. confession, written it Turning to the McKeamer, (“If A.2d at we find See taken, by no means clear that before it was scrupulously that the honored detectives of his Miranda warned Stewart we look to [to silent] must then intentionally waived and Stewart intentionally appellant whether relin Moreover, if that had been done them. even quished or abandoned her to remain police began transcription, their before (internal citations, quotations, and al silent.” in this case change the result omitted) added)); (emphasis terations Wil time, already because son, (“In supra, light at 29 444 A.2d n. 7 twenty for at questioning least ultimately suc the detectives’ deliberate and above, we for a minutes. As noted look attempts appellant’s to induce cessful if cut off the defendant’s waiver statement, incriminatory finding that our “scrupulously questioning was honored.” attempts amounted to their case, again present Applying it was not. that the failed and our conclusion detectives factors to scrupulously Fifth appellant’s might honor warnings have been point the fresh rights, it would inconsistent yields question Amendment the conclusion appellant independent virtually no for us to hold that the There was ing improper. initiated, ly insistently previous interrogation, nurtured and lapse in time from Miranda, discussions.”); subject, personnel place. su guided change and no “ cf. (“[A]ny in continuation custodial pra, permit 86 S.Ct. at 1629 ‘To threatened, momentary cessation terrogation after a accused evidence that clearly purposes would suppression frustrate of Mi- denial of the motion was not repeated allowing ques- randa beyond rounds of a reasonable doubt “harmless consti tioning person the will of the undermine California, Chapman tutional error.” ” being questioned.’ Peoples v. United 18, 20, 824, 826, 17 L.Ed.2d States, (D.C.1978) (quot- 44 n. 7 A.2d (1967). testimony alleged of Stewart’s ing Mosley, supra, 423 U.S. at robbery partners, who served as witnesses 321). respect to this With fourth and last government, hopelessly for the was contra interrogation, only possible Mosley factor fact, dictory. likely jury it is favoring government would be fresh Mi- primarily relied on Stewart’s confession of themselves, warnings. By however, randa murder,11 convicted, of which was they Peoples, are insufficient. 395 A.2d Cf. acquitted it attempted because him the (affirming at 44 admission statement robbery charge, support which had no in where only interview detective occurred Stewart’s confession. The confession was (1) arrestee had been taken before a only piece implicating of evidence Stew (2) judicial officer; requested he had directly art in did not the murder that interview; (3) six it had been hours since his support charge, robbery because it con (4) session; just last he had been reread his nothing concerning tained Stewart’s intent to rights).10 government Miranda Had the es- gun rob when he “stuck” the the window tablished warnings that fresh Miranda were jury of the If the decedent’s ear. did not properly given nighttime at the outset testimony sufficient credit to the office, interrogation squad in the witnesses, government’s conjunction with obligations Mosley, have met its under pointed gun Stewart’s admission that he and we would affirm. Because now Miranda face, guilty the victim’s find Stewart warnings timely given they were —if robbery, attempted there is at least a reason at all—Stewart’s confession able as doubt to whether Stewart’s confes should have been excluded because was jury’s sion had an effect on the verdict find acquired in his Fifth violation of Amendment ing guilty of murder. rights. remanded.12, Reversed and IV. FARRELL, Judge, concurring. Associate

Having found Stewart’s confes admitted, join Judge opinion, sion erroneously was we Ruiz’s write conclude emphasize we must reverse the conviction me is because what for the decisive Peoples open bears some resemblance to this and his case window was I stuck the resulting in that the in the pistol contested in his He looked window. like he tried preceded by concededly statement two im- grabbed grabbed my to smack it and he and I proper resumptions questioning. Id. at 43. pulled hand and out into the then street and (questioning But see id. at 43 n. 5 whether the gun jumped went and ran in the off. I correct). government’s concession The fact my house and room and went went into to bed. pattern complicated Peoples, statement, Later in the Stewart said that he concededly improper question- the fact that the say anything and the did not man in the car ing Maryland, by Maryland police occurred in one another. regarding Maryland both and District of Colum- bia crimes. sue, however, Id. at 42-43. The statement at is- statement, separate colleague sug- 12.In his our was made to a District offi- gests government that on remand should regarding cer the District crime. Id. at 43. The supplement opportunity have an the record appellant apparently attempt argue did not respect to when Stewart received additional improper causal the two connection between ses- warnings. Miranda We do not think that Maryland sions in the District session. See First, appropriate. has not re- Moreover, there id. 43-44. were substantial quested purpose. remand for that other lapses tion, improper interroga- between the time Second, was on notice in the request speak defendant's to the trial court that it had the burden to show that it officer, District and the that elicited "scrupulously honored” Stewart’s incriminating statement. Id. 42-43. of fresh silent. Evidence Miranda warn- following: ings related the Stewart’s statement is identified in as a factor to be taken Third, question quoted into account. 4, in note playground, up We were at the so we went Street, supra, government's presenta- well as the down to 7th and L Northwest and up were behind So I went to the tion of other the circumstances sur- the tree. car evidence of

869 single proper a requiring factor reversal. task is manee would be Our Mosley’s apply Michigan v. of whether Had test in this case. the detec- fact different police “scrupulously appellant’s honored” tives, the returning station escort- on to the of That assertion his silent. office, immedi- ing appellant to the homicide test, course, says, not mean it of does what rights, ately him of his Miranda re-advised police truly scrupulous— if the had to period during which preceding eight-hour punctiliously heeding exact —in the defen- they unquestioned him himself left talk, required their behavior dant’s refusal to inter- neutralized Treadwell’s cellblock indistinguishable Ed- would be from what analysis. Mosley rogation purposes of Arizona, 477, v. 451 U.S. 101 S.Ct. wards But, Judge explains, as Ruiz that did (1981), 1880, requires 68 378 when L.Ed.2d immediately police happen. Instead right to have the defendant has asserted the happened” him to “[w]hat relate Instead, present. applied counsel uni- obviously began talking what about formly by appeals, Mosley courts of then, Only lapse a half crime. permits further standard interaction between more, or obtain a waiver before hour did suspect it and the and evaluates taking pre-warn- his formal statement. This case-by-case by applying multiple factors ing interrogation, top earli- Treadwell’s decision, Mosley gleaned from the none bond, religious yields invocation of their er totality of which alone is decisive. Given this critical conduct2 that vio- mass of very test1 so different the circumstances Mosley’s Judge As Ruiz’s lated command. rule, bright-line prophylactic from Edwards’ join analysis, this I opinion is consistent with analysis “can surprising it is not it. opposite produce results cases that are Smith, respects,” similar some Charles v. opinion by Judge Separate Associate (5th Cir.1990), 718, can 894 F.2d 726 KING. divide reasonable minds. But, notwithstanding malleability, if this KING, Judge: Associate phrase “scrupulously is to have honored” disagree separately, I write not because I any rigor it all means that we must resolve my analysis, I colleagues’ but because police respected doubts about whether the us is am not convinced that the record before the defendant’s assertion of to si- sufficiently permit ultimate complete to case, against government. lence In this majority is them. The conclusion reached question that means on the close government had an the view that “interrogated” whether Detective Treadwell necessary opportunity to make the record invoking appellant the cellblock area so, by any it did do it is bound and since religious their common obtain- affiliation and agree resulted. While deficiencies (while ing his later assent to conversation government had the burden of show- directly mentioning asking nor him about it honored” Stewart’s ing “scrupulously crime), tip the balance must to an afSrmative statement, (I not to decisions, that, exercise agree answer. under our required under the it did all that was do “interroga- has whether not there as the ground applicable rules issue ultimately legal ques- under tion” Innis decide). so, Michigan v. in the court. See for this affir- framed trial tion court Even facts_” Dell'Aria, rounding midnight interrogation, States us United convince relevant fully (E.D.N.Y.1993). government F.Supp. aware of the need concerning present subsequent warn- to ings. evidence government failed to The fact that clear, Mosley "the the decisions make under 2. As present only suggests than it more evidence did law en focus is the conduct of the central ... to us that the had exhausted rather than the voluntari forcement authorities” position. Given the evidence favorable to its foregoing, waiver or confession. ness of Miranda permitting the to reliti- 842; Dell’Aria, supra, F.Supp. at see also gate neither nor efficient. the issue would be fair Barone, (1st F.2d States v. United Cir.1992). case-by-case Mosley Court “[T]he envisioned approach involving inquiry into all Mosley, 96, 100, pressed 324- Young’s testimony because Detective (1975). court, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 really this revealed what signing occurred: after however, the issue completed otherwise, has been framed differ- indicating PD 47 ently, majority’s talk; and the decision Young is based told not Stewart he did wish to upon a factor that considered to be later had the conversation with during at issue hearing cellblock; and, on the motion. Treadwell in the the written actually statement was taken much later in Briefly, testimony revealed that Stew- evening. just art in was arrested his home before noon information, and taken to the homicide office where he With this new the focus rights by was read his Miranda3 hearing then became what occurred Young using police form PD 47. Stewart the course of Stewart’s conversation with “yes,” writing, ques- Treadwell, answered in to all four Treadwell. who had not been including tions on that form testify the one indicat- scheduled to because he knew less ing that willing questions he was Young concerning answer than Detective did the is- having attorney present. motion, without an He sue raised in the written was then signed then and orally give dated the form. He called his version of the events in the however, Young, told Detective that he did position cellblock. The defense was that ques- not wish to make a statement and no Treadwell’s conversation with concerning tions the offense were asked of itself “scru- violated the him. Detective pulously did ask routine bio- honored” edict. The trial court graphical questions otherwise, that Stewart Throughout answered. ruled however. p.m., At about 3:30 Stewart was taken to the discussion of this issue counsel cellblock that, where the encounter with Detective court it was assumed after the cellblock place encounter, Treadwell took by Judge as recounted reopening Stewart initiated the opinion. Ruiz in her Thereafter the detec- discussion of the case detectives. It case; they tives became involved in another was never contended that the failure to did not return their attention to warnings” any bearing Stewart until “fresh had on the evening admissibility confession, much later in the when he was ques- and no brought where, to the homicide office tions were either officer in that p.m., gave Indeed, about 11:45 regard. the statement the defense did not raise controversy. which is in point in either its motion for reconsider- ation to the trial court or in its in brief this In seeking suppression of this statement question court. warnings,” of “fresh theory moving target. the defense has been a however, arise, time, during did for the first ground One in advanced the written argument oral in majority this court. The suppress, litigated motion to a second was in government now holds that because the did hearing court, on the motion in the trial warnings” demonstrate that “fresh were surfaced, time, and a third for the first dur- given, it has failed to establish ing argument oral in this court. For exam- “scrupulously exercise of honored” Stewart’s ple, when defense counsel filed the motion to to remain silent. suppress, impression he was under the the written stage statement had been taken imme- I do not at this reach the same result diately PD my colleagues after the 47 form was executed. do because of the defect ground suppression, expressed suspect, reading record. between motion, Stewart, lines, eigh- the written was that will be years teen old at prior warnings” the time with no able to establish either that “fresh justice Stewart, system, given, contact with the criminal or that some fashion just volition, having forcibly removed from his and of his own made it clear home, changed was so shaken that he did not make a mind and now wished to talk See, knowing intelligent rights. waiver of his about the circumstances of the offense. Although Elstad, 298, 310-11, presented e.g., Oregon the defense wit- two 470 U.S. 1285, 1293-94, support theory, nesses of that it was not 105 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 222 Arizona, (1966). 3. Miranda v. 384 U.S. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1985). presented the circumstances Under

here, however, if the is able showing, be

make should either Therefore, I would

opportunity to do so. remand, essentially for the rea-

reverse and Judge Judge Ruiz and

sons set forth

Farrell; however, reversal would condi- allowing gov- upon

tioned the trial court present

ernment whatever relevant evi- bearing point. may

dence it this BARRERA, Appellant,

Jose S. WILSON, Appellee. Lee

Marvin

No. 94-CV-502. Appeals. Court of

District of Columbia

Argued Dec.

Decided Dec. Goodman, H.

Louis and Matthew Fireison appellant. for Donohue, appellee. H. Patrick KING, Associate Before FERREN and PRYOR, Judge. Judges, and Senior FERREN, Judge: Associate Barrera, brought suit appellant, Jose Wilson, appellee, seeking against Marvin damages injuries Barrera sustained when bicy- on his him allegedly car struck Wilson’s Barrera jury A to award dam- cle. declined ages concluding after both Wilson was contribu- negligent that Barrera negligent. appeal contends torily Barrera erroneously admitted that the trial court (1) of his hospital record treat- evidence (2) accident, a statement ment

Case Details

Case Name: Stewart v. United States

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Dec 21, 1995

Citation: 668 A.2d 857

Docket Number: 93-CF-620

Court Abbreviation: D.C.