United States of America v. Ramiro Astello

p.m. at 9:26 cluded GIBSON, R. and JOHN Before BEAM to see asked night, that Astello Later PRATT,1 District and Judges, Circuit met them again. He with agents the two Judge. his earlier supplemented and on June 20 GIBSON, Judge. Circuit JOHN R. Erick- of additional details statement with the district appeals kidnapping and death. Astello son’s Ramiro 2 suppress of his motion deniál court’s trial, suppress moved to Before Astello police the in made to he two statements involuntary. The the two statements investigation an conjunction with motion to a referred court the district Sky Erickson. murder of kidnapping and that the first who found magistrate judge, trial, at admitted were The statements the involuntary but statement was kidnapping, Astello of jury convicted the reject- court The district second was not. and use kidnapping, commit conspiracy to the June finding that magistrate’s the ed a crime of relationship to of a firearm coerced, held that both 19 statement violence, 18 U.S.C. violation of As- voluntary, and denied statements were 924(c) (1994 1201(c), 1201(a), & §§ ap- suppress. tello’s motion 1998). manda- a Astello received Supp. IV his agents the coeí-eed arguing that peals, affirm. tory life sentence. tainted his and that this first statement 1997, 6, was taken Erickson June On second statement. Minnesota to an abandoned from Iowa farmhouse, and killed. he was where shot ul court’s district We review pursuant investigation an After de of timate determination voluntariness warrant, Astello at his police arrested novo, findings we review the factual but Estherville, 19. An Iowa June on home for clear er that determination underlying Em- Astello to the took Estherville officer Otters, 316, 197 F.3d States v. ror. United Deputy’s office. Chief County met Sheriff Cir.1999). must government Birnie and office, Robert agent At FBI the evidence of prove by preponderance informed As- Don agent Minnesota were volun challenged statements that the rights.3 Astello tello of Miranda his Twomey, U.S. tary. Lego v. approxi- waiver-of-rights form signed (1972). 619, L.Ed.2d p.m. mately 6:45 received undisputed It that Astello in- agents During questioning, rights warnings waived Miranda arrested that he been formed had interroga beginning of June in death and kidnapping that resulted for can a defendant tion: which “[C]ases in Iowa was for the crime penalty that the that a self- argument make a colorable parole. of with no chance prison life in ‘compelled’ statement was incriminating him he could be told They also enforcement fact that the despite the law federal law Minnesota or charged under of Mi to the dictates authorities adhered first, At Astello de- crime. for the same McCarty, randa are rare.” Berkemer kidnap- in the was involved nied he 420, 433, 468 U.S. S.Ct. an hour after Less ping and murder. (1984). 317 n.20 L.Ed.2d began, began tell- Arizona, Pratt, 3. See Miranda Robert W. United 1. The Honorable (1966). Astello Judge Southern District for the 16 L.Ed.2d 694 States District Iowa, designation. sitting by rights of at the time of his had been informed well. Bennett, his arrest as W. 2. The Mark Honorable Judge District for the Northern Stales District of Iowa. inadmissible); To determine whether this is one confession Wyrick, Rone v. (8th Cir.1985) cases, totality (parental those rare we consider the presence not surrounding mandatory juvenile’s of the circumstances Astello’s tor con- court). confession, fession to be admissible in focusing on both the conduct of federal capacity and Astello’s to resist Astello also alleges that the im- to v. pressure confess. See States properly used several tactics to coerce him (8th Cir.1995). Kilgore, 58 F.3d argues confess. He that they placed for appropriate determining “The test the time constraints on his decision whether to voluntariness of a confession whether them, thus him subjecting psy- threats, the confession was extracted chological pressure; they made false violence, implied promises, or direct or promises; they played on his emotions such that the defendant’s will over- was and used respect his for his family against capacity borne and his for self-determina- Obviously, him. interrogation suspect of a (internal critically impaired.” tion Id. quo- will pressure involve some pur- because its omitted). tations and citation pose is to elicit a confession. In order to result, obtain the desired interrogators use In support argument of his that his laundry a list of tactics. See Richard A. involuntary, June 19 statement was Leo, Room, Inside the Interrogation heavily relies most on the fact that he was (1996). J.Crim. L. & Criminology not allowed to see his mother. the During “Numerous cases have question- held that Astello, interrogation, who eighteen was ing voice, tactics such as a raised decep- old, “Well, years asked to see his mother: tion, sympathetic or a attitude on part you give if a me last chance to talk to interrogator not will render a con- mom at say any least now before I fession involuntary unless the overall im- just cuz I I’ll thing, think stick with the pact caused the defen- truth then.” After several more minutes will dant’s to be overborne.” Jenner v. of discussion between Astello and the (8th Smith, Cir.1993). 982 F.2d agents, repeated request: his “I Here, a want to talk to used train anal my mom first. Then I’ll ogy, Yeah, telling Astello that the train it, talk. was leav was involved in all. that’s ing the station and those who told the You wanna hear that? was involved truth would be on the train while those left it.... I know what went every on and behind at the station charged would be thing about it. I told I need to talk to They with the crime. said that the train Enger mom first.” When asked what crowded, getting was and that those who about, he wanted to talk to his mother were on train testify would against responded, “Just to tell her I’m— Certainly, him. may these statements goin’ what’s on.” then told Astello have influenced Astello’s decision tell that he could talk to his mother after he Having carefully the truth. read and lis happened, told them what and Astello tened to the June 19 in its agreed. may While Astello have been however, entirety, we conclude that seeking guidance, Ms words indicate that statements were “not so coercive as to he asked to see his mother after he had deprive ability [Astello] of an [his] make decided to confess. After considering all unconstrained decision to confess.” Unit circumstances, we hold that agents’ Mendoza, ed v. States 85 F.3d failure to speak allow Astello to to his (8th Cir.1996). involuntary. mother not does render his statement United States ex rel. Riley At during interrogation, times Cf . Franzen, 1160-62 imply that agents„seemed Astello would (adopting case-by-case ap get something prison less than life in if he proach to determine whether denial of a occasion, confessed. On more than one juvenile’s parent however, request for a they specifically renders told Astello that interview, that he at the any being said In any promises. make not

they could response.” to measure capacity nec had the does not leniency event, promise that Astello’s also found involuntary. The district court a statement essarily make n justice the criminal Sumpter dealings with “prior In F.3d at 358. Kilgore, See (8th Cir.1988), we him to more have allowed Nix, system would F.2d the serious situation voluntary fully comprehend was a confession concluded him] [rendered himself and that his he found alleged which the defendant though even by the be intimidated likely of le implied promises less made interrogators clearly findings are not These knowledge agents.” niency. The defendant’s erroneous, support the district they risky supported our confessing would be June Astello’s knew court’s determination Similarly, Astello Id. conclusion. voluntary. point during At one statement confessing. risks of said, say “If I the he questioning, understood rights his and Astello knew in the in.” Later truth, goiri I’m still crime committing the consequences of “Yeah, stated, gonna I’m he interrogation, ques- He was arrested. which he was for all truth, I we’re guess because tell the and was than three hours tioned for less ” we did .... for punished what gonna be interro- any way. in Police not mistreated had dis- he told Astello that agents a re- elicit designed are gation tactics that his lies dishon- family and his graced pro- tactics the fact that the sponse, and told him that They also family. ored his not result here does the intended duced father’s heart. his involuntary. he had broken confession Astello’s make by in least to be affected did not seem course, that we This, does not mean of tactic. dishonor” “family this used any of the tactics condone said, “[W]hy do Immediately indication, after no in case. We see this your dishonor persist bringing you however, will overborne Astello’s was that you dishonor to persist bringing family, capacity for self-determination and his nothing I mean have by lyin’? impaired. critically [Yjorire tough the last of gain.... statement, regard to the June With tougher that everyone is guys, and that only that the coercion argues on,” Astello goiri down? Come you is the sec- first statement tainted led to his shame, commented, huh?” and “That’s a that his first have concluded As we ond. that response indicates laughed. Astello’s voluntary, ques- is no there statement was not overborne. will his was was second admissible tion lim- age, argues that his Finally, Astello well. education, experience with and lack of ited district judgment affirm the of in favor justice system weigh the criminal court. eigh- Astello turned of involuntariness. before he confessed only weeks teen two PRATT, concurring in Judge, District kidnapping. He in the his involvement dissenting part. part and had and eleventh completed grade had second, confession unwarned for Astello’s dates on two different been arrested freely given 1997 was on June proper- given possession of stolen three crimes: the district voluntarily, and therefore and assault, These disorderly ty, conduct. suppressing in not court was correct juvenile court waived from charges were -with respect, concur In this ar- confession. he was eventually dismissed after to Astello’s opinion. majority’s As court district in this case. The rested however, statement, I re- mature, “a self- June Astello was found that that Astello’s I believe spectfully It dissent. person. year old eighteen assured interviewing to the given statements capacity had the that defendant clear product of were the on 19th understand, June understand, and did saying anything agents. therefore obtained vio- fore else to the compulsion, and rights. requested speak Fifth Amendment three times to lation of his

with his telling story, mother before his but to no avail. exchange, The relevant I. majority’s opin- which is omitted from the undisputed reading that after Astel It is ion, is as follows: to Miranda v. Ari rights pursuant lo Well, if you give Astello4: me a last zona, U.S. chance to talk to mom at least (1966), obtaining L.Ed.2d 694 from say now anything, before cuz I think I’ll form, signed agents Enger him a waiver just stick with the truth then. and Birnie launched into a focused interro Astello, him about the gation quizzing Enger: You wanna your mom surrounding events and circumstances first? June 6th murder. Astello: Yeah. tape transcript A review Enger: your feeling? What’s the June 19th reveals I guess gonna Astello: Cuz this ain’t failed, tried, agents repeatedly but make any guess. difference I If I’m lying, get inculpatory Astello to make statements going’ truth, I’m still If I say in. I’m During about him and others involved. in, going’ still so what’s the difference. interrogation, they the first hour of the it, * * * employed, majority puts a “laun- Well, Enger: you’re going’ in. tactics,” ante at dry list of to elicit gonna Birnie: You’re not be able to hide from Astello a confession. These tactics your anymore.... behind skirt mom’s analogy (“you included: use of a train still pull your can the wool [Y]ou over mom’s train, opportunity get have the on that eyes; you your it to haven’t done dad. happened”); implied and what tell us Enger: Other than breakin’ his heart. promises leniency (cooperation may of re- “something mandatory sult in less” than your Birnie: But gonna mom’s not be sentence); life accusations that the Defen- you able to come and bail out this time. liar; dant sympathetic ap- was a “classic” it gonna What’s be? (“[we] peals to the Defendant don’t think you already. Astello: I told I want to you’re guy”; “things happen”; a bad talk I’ll mom first. Then talk. just “you happened place to be at a bad at Yeah, it, I was involved in that’s all. You (“You’ve time”); guilt a bad dis- wanna hear that? involved in it. was graced” your father who is “too nice a Enger: know that. person” “[y]our mother is too [who] lady”). nice Astello: I what went on and ev- know erything you I told I need to talk about it. Throughout phase this initial of the in- to mom first. terrogation, ques- Astello answered the posed tions to him. He never told the Enger: you Let me you ask wanna agents stop questioning. their your big boy talk to mom about. You’re a consistently denied his involvement now. June 6th murder. Yeah, Astello: I am. know hour, however, After about an the tenor Enger: Okay. interrogation changed. sig- suspend ques- go- naled his intention to Astello: to tell her I’m—what’s Just tioning speak to his on. ing’ mother first be- transcript,

4. In the the names of the The Defendant is denominated as "RA.” For inter- viewers are denominated "DE” and "BB” clarity, only. I cite to names their last respectively. for Don Bob Birnie Mosley, 423 U.S. Michigan In do this. Why don’t Enger: (1975), the Su 46 L.Ed.2d 313 Yeah. Astello: passage. quoted clarified this preme Court hap- you tell us what Why don’t Enger: in the safeguard critical identified “The done, give you we’ll and when we’re pened, to cut person’s Tight passage at issue is ” your mom. opportunity to at 96 S.Ct. 321. Id. questioning.’ off Okay. “admissibility obtained of statements Astello: The custody has decided person after minute with her. can have a Enger: You Court, silent,” “depends held the remain a minute? Astello: Just Tight on whether under Miranda Well, you can have reasonable Enger: ‘scrupulously hon questioning’ cut off ” time, that? how’s amount 96 S.Ct. 321. ored.’ Id. Okay. determining Astello: whether Factors relevant questioning right to cut off the accused’s confessed, day, Astello that same Later “a) honored” are: “scrupulously has been kidnaping and in the implicating himself police immediately ceased whether Erickson. The June 19th Sky murder b) request, upon defendant’s interrogation p.m., 9:30 concluded at about only af they resumed whether began. after it approximately 3 hours period of passage significant of a ter night, requested Later that Miranda warn provided time and fresh Enger again Birnie and speak with c) later they restricted ings, and whether They met with Astello the murder. about had not been to a crime that a.m. holding facility at 9:43 at a different interrogation.” subject of the first give did not on June 1177, 1179 Wyrick, Jackson provid- warnings. Astello fresh Miranda Mosley, 423 U.S. (citing in- surrounding his additional details ed 321)). 106, emphasis typical 96 The S.Ct. This 6th murder. the June volvement factors, the last on the first three ly is interview, tape re- which was also second See, e.g., being non-dispositive. factor corded, minutes. approximately 90 lasted (8th 1011, 1015 Caspari, v. 186 F.3d Brown Solem, 317, Cir.1999); 752 F.2d Stumes v. II. (8th Cir.1985). 322 Miranda, Supreme ob- In Court right to re Ordinarily, “to invoke one’s served: silent, ex unequivocally must main one given, the sub- warnings have been Once to remain silent.” Sim press his desire clear. If the indi- sequent procedure is Bowersox, 1124, 1131 235 F.3d mons manner, any any vidual indicates (8th Cir.2001) Al- States v. (citing United prior during questioning, time to or (8th Cir.1999)); 928, 936 Muqsit, 191 F.3d silent, he to remain the interro- wishes Johnson, 947, 955 56 F.3d States point At this he has gation must cease. (8th (“clear, expres consistent to exercise his shown that he intends required) to remain silent” sion of desire privilege; any Fifth state- Amendment omitted). (citation However, the as when person ment invokes his taken after the right Fifth of one’s Amendment sertion prod- cannot be other than the privilege equivocal, permits the law ambiguous or compulsion, uct of subtle or otherwise. only clarify to whether inquiry, further but questioning, to cut off right Without the invoking right. in fact the accused is the setting in-custody (after Simmons, n. F.3d at 1132 3 See operates to overcome on the individual to remain assertion of ambiguous an af- producing free a statement choice immediately silent, questioning “should ter been once invoked. privilege has inquire then agent] should [the cease interpreta- suspect as to the correct 473-74, 384 U.S. at S.Ct. statement”) (citation omitted); 687, (1955) (“ritualistic” tion of the 99 L.Ed. 997 or (7th Kolb, F.2d Bobo v. Cir. “talismanic” phrases are not always neces- 1992) (same); Reid, Campaneria v. 891 sary before one invokes his Fifth Amend- (2d Cir.1989) (same), F.2d cert. self-incrimination). privilege against ment denied, least, very At the any follow-up questions (1991). heightened L.Ed.2d The at should only have been used clarify to tention the law accords even to inarticulate whether Astello inwas fact invoking his requests to be silent is consistent with that Fifth right. Amendment example, For premise right’s undergirding Johnson, 56 F.3d at if when asked he “[t]hrough option the exercise of his rights, wished to waive his the defendant accused, questioning,” terminate it is the responded equivocally: you any- “[I]f tell and not the interrogators, who “control the thing, just you’re going against to use it occurs, questioning time which the sub later, you? me aren’t ... guys [Y]ou have discussed, jects and the duration of the all the against evidence me. I don’t need interrogation.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103- any make statement. I don’t need to 04, 96 S.Ct. 321. say anything.” clarifying questions After from agents, the defendant then “I stated: case, In this once informed of rights, jail time, know I’m going long for a freely answered the questions put life, rest of I can’t help myself by him during the first hour of the interro talking you.” Id. We determined that gation. point There then came a during answer to a “clear” be invocation of the when Astello decided to defendant’s Fifth rights. Amendment Id. halt the direct in questioning about his “acted prudently,” we ob- volvement in the crime talk with his served, “by attempting clarify whether mother. you give Astello stated: me “[I]f asserting Johnson was his right silence tp a last chance to talk to mom at least by not further him after it right now I say anything, before cuz I was clear that Johnson did not want to just think I’ll stick with the truth then.” (citation omitted). talk.” Id. juncture, At this the mandate of Miranda Mosley required to imme procedures prescribed None of the diately see, terminate questioning, e.g., Mosley Instead, were followed. sensing Grammer, Otey v. hand, that a confession was close at Cir.1988) (when “appeared defendant un agents redoubled their efforts to convince willing specific to answer questions, inter Astello to talk: ceased”), rogation immediately cert. de you already. Astello: I told I want to nied, 1031, 3288, 497 U.S. 110 111 S.Ct. talk to mom first. Then I’ll talk. (1990); L.Ed.2d 796 United v. States it, I Yeah. was involved in that’s all. You 1231, Udey, 748 F.2d wanna hear that? I was involved it. (when “expressed defendant some unwill terminated”), talk, ingness to Enger: know that. denied, 1017, t. 472 U.S. cer Astello: I know what went on and ev- (1985), only S.Ct. and resume after a erything about it. I you told need to talk significant period passed of time had to mom first. fresh Miranda warnings given. also See United States v. Cody, F.3d 775- Enger: you you Let me ask wanna (8th Cir.1997). your talk to boy mom about. You’re a big True, Astello’s was not the clearest invo now. silent, cation of the to remain though * * * Yeah, Astello: I am. know fact hardly

this should work an automatic prejudice against him. See Emspak Enger: Why you Why don’t do this.... Slates, 190, 194, 349 U.S. you happened, S.Ct. don’t tell us what and when Miranda, at 86 S.Ct. opportunity wise.” done, you the give we’ll

we’re Therefore, confession should this 1602. your talk to mom. for this rea- suppressed. And have been Okay. Astello: son, I dissent. attempts get repeated In their mother, consulting with his to talk before allow Astello to “control did not occurs, the questioning at which

the time discussed, and the duration of

subjects at 103- Mosley, 423 U.S.

interrogation.” 321; F.2d at Campaneria, 891 “If want to remark that (agent’s METAL INTER WORKERS us, to do it” was not SHEET now is the time ASSOCIATION, LO at NATIONAL resolving ambiguity but rather aimed 36, Appellee, mind). CAL UNION NO. This is a changing defendant’s a police failed to honor “where the case off person custody a to cut decision of INC., SYSTEMAIRE, Appellant. discon by refusing to questioning, either byor interrogation upon request tinue the 98-3414, 99-1787. Nos. wear down repeated efforts to persisting Appeals, United States Court change him and make his resistance Eighth Circuit. 105-06, Mosley, 423 U.S. mind.” 321; also id. at 96 S.Ct. 321 see Dec. Submitted: (“To of custodial permit the continuation 6, 2001. Filed: March momentary cessation interrogation after purpose of Mi clearly frustrate the would repeated rounds of by allowing

randa the will of the to undermine Wyrick, 730 being questioned.”);

person interrogation de (“Repeated at 1179

F.2d give the defendant’s refusal

spite ”); .... can violate Miranda

statement Franzen, Riley v. ex rel.

United States (“[A] (7th Cir.) single 1161-62

F.2d should be parent] see one’s

request [to differently repeated requests,

viewed response repetitions if are

especially the regarding police questions series investigation. under Under

the crime circumstances, properly latter

some an invocation of the

may be’ viewed as ”), de to silence .... cert.

suspect’s right

nied, 1067, 102 (1981). Because Astello’s

L.Ed.2d 602 was not “scru to cut off honored,” Mosley, 423 U.S.

pulously incriminating state they were given

ments of June influence of two pressure

under the “cannot be other

experienced agents, compulsion, subtle or other- product

Case Details

Case Name: United States of America v. Ramiro Astello

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 5, 2001

Citation: 241 F.3d 965

Docket Number: 99-2443

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.