United States v. Billy Hall

Cox, Louisville, Attys., Ky., D. Asst. U.S. plaintiff-appellee. America, UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, Rivers, Paducah, argued, Ky., for E.W. defendant-appellant. HALL, Defendant-Appellant. Billy RYAN, KENNEDY and Before Circuit No. 89-5984. SMITH, Judges, Judge.* District Appeals, Court of United States SMITH,

Sixth Circuit. Judge. GEORGE C. District 8, Appellant Billy appeals Hall his convic- 1990. Argued March mailing threatening tion for letter to Decided June 1990. President and Vice President United Rehearing July Denied 1990. of 18 871 and States violation U.S.C. §§ Specifically, Billy 872. in June of serving Hall was a sentence the state Hall, Eddyville, Kentucky. penitentiary at individuals, along escaped other brought penitentiary, captured, arraigned August of 1988. back brought the state court in Hall was Lyon lawyer appoint- and a spoke ed for him. Hall with that escape charges. concerning his 28, 1988, threatening letter On October other signed two individuals1 Reagan. President Ronald was sent to then upon address found the en- The return velope penitentia- that of the Eddyville referred ry. The White House mail room Intelligence the letter to the Division The Washington, D.C. Service Secret copies of the let- Intelligence Division sent Louisville field of- envelope to the ter and investigation. Special fice for and James Parker went to Agents Decicco penitentiary and interviewed the state signatures appeared on the subjects whose letter. Dennis McAn- agents interviewed who, waiving his Miranda

inch letter, signed the rights, admitted he it, the en- helped draft and addressed velope. He further stated kill the President or opportunity he would Vice President. also interviewed Parker

Decicco and Decicco, According to he read Hall Whittle, Atty., Terry Hall. Joseph M. Thereafter, stat- rights. Wheatley, Cushing, argued, Monica Scott * Smith, Charged were Dennis O’Neil George in the indictment C. The Honorable Davidson, Ohio, Thomas Edward Jr. for the Southern District of McAninch District Court sitting by part appeal. designation. not a of this who are

960 ques- he Agent Parker testified that had the letter. personally written ed that he regarding the tioned Hall about his role he had said he meant what He stated that and letter and he too read to Hall his Miranda kill the President he and that would rights. explained He to Hall that he had opportunity. if he had President Vice attorney, to an that if he could handwriting samples. The gave Hall also one, ap- 12, attorney would be April not afford an commenced on in this matter trial pointed for him. Parker indicated that did Hall did not counsel. Parker Agent at the trial was witness The first report testify that within Hall’s however regarding the Decicco testified Decicco. attorney had been information that finishing After McAninch. interview with escape charge. appointed for Hall on the McAninch, Decicco testimony regarding his and ex- before the Court Billy Hall. Hall testified he next talked testified that indicated plained escape charge. his He objected Decicco testi- immediately Hall attorney admissions, appointed an for statements, or evi- that he had been fying to had talked to escape charge and that he during the interview. given by Hall dence regard charge. Hall attorney his hearing of A conference outside to counsel re- indicated that he had talked explained to it was jury ensued where being escape charge before garding the escaped from Billy Hall had the court indi- Agents. these He also interviewed Kentucky, Eddyville, penitentiary him agents did not ask cated that captured and returned had but been they and had he had an explained that a law- July. It was asked, have availed himself of he would Billy Hall yer had been testified, however, attorney. Hall later objected to charges. specifically Hall those Agents him he could have an that the told during the interview made any statements made a attorney. Hall indicated that he Parker, he al- Decicco and Hall, request. According to Decicco and appointed counsel on the ready had been Thereafter, ignored request. Parker any statements he charge. Therefore state couple agent’s ques- Hall answered a sup- had to gave during that interview be might indicated that he know tions and dispute that Hall was pressed. It is not gave He something the letter. about escape charge questioned about handwriting sample. 8, 1988. during the interview on November found that Hall waived place The trial court questioning that took noted that rights. The court threatening letter sent regarding the interrogation, counsel the time of the The district court penitentiary. from the appointed for Hall. Neverthe- whereby it to be had been hearing conducted less, admitted of Hall were (1) giv- had the statements whether Hall determined: jury returned a ver- (2) into evidence and the rights; and whether or en his Miranda guilty. The district court sentenced voluntarily dict of knowingly and waived not he (60) served con- sixty Hall to months be rights. those imprisonment secutively any term of that he did not know Decicco indicated Defendant was currently being served. Billy Hall that a law- he when interviewed years supervised three release. also Decicco appointed for him. yer had been appeals arguing that his statements Hall of his Mi- that he advised testified Agents Decicco and Parker were attorney, and the made to rights to have an randa of Arizona v. 486 could violation possibility that one be 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 that while the Secret U.S. him. He indicated forms, recently also has been fol- did have written waiver Service Wolf, 879 F.2d lowed in States v. Hall or the other two individu- United did not have Cir.1989). appeal likewise However, according This 1320 sign als the forms. the admission of Decicco, freely voluntarily centers around whether spoke harm- statement could invoke any way by either defendant’s coerced California, 386 Chapman less error. agent. (1967). A presump- L.Ed.2d 705 without the advice of counsel. reasons, any subsequent I find that tion is created that foregoing waiver For statements were not in violation to counsel at the authorities Hall’s Since has not been Roberson. purely and not behest was coercive volun- The invoked, Moreover, tary. provides a waiver could be obtained. it clear and un- that defen- properly equivocal District Court found guidelines the inform waived Miranda voluntarily his prosecutors dant specificity they and with what brought rights, appellant and has not may conducting interroga- do in custodial Therefore, neither the appeal. to this issue tion, and that inform the courts under what ob- issue of a valid waiver was during circumstances statements obtained needs to be ad- tained nor harmless error interrogation such are not admissible. 486 However, it should be noted that dressed. 680-682, at at 108 S.Ct. 2097-2098. to address the issue if this Court were Roberson was concerned with coercive error, I would found harmless have interrogation by custodial authorities would not have been Hall’s statements suspect ability the has not had the where Chapman. as found in The harmless error counsel, because, suspect speak to “to a AFFIRMS the District Court. Court inability cope who has indicated his with Arizona, 451 U.S. In Edwards v. pressures interrogation by the of custodial 1885, 484-485, 1880, counsel, requesting interroga- further Supreme the Court L.Ed.2d 378 having provided tion counsel been without held: surely compulsion will exacerbate whatever accused, ..., his having expressed [An] feeling.” speak suspect may the be police only deal the desire to with Thus, the U.S. at 108 S.Ct. at 2100. counsel, through subject is not Supreme disagreed the conten- Court until interrogation by the authorities set of Miranda warnings a tion that fresh him, has made available to counsel been suspect who had- been would “reassure” fur- the accused himself initiates unless rights denied counsel would have his re- communication, con- exchanges or ther untrammeled, “especially in a case main police. with the versations as, this, period of three such which Roberson, Supreme Arizona In the the re- days elapsed between unsatisfied ap- prophylactic this rule held that Court interrogation the quest for counsel and interrogation fol- plies police-initiated when Id. Signifi- offense ...” about a second suspect’s request for counsel oc- lowing a Ro- cant within the Edwards extension criminal context of an unrelated curs the interroga- berson was the individual 108 S.Ct. at investigation. 486 U.S. opportunity to yet had the ted had not contends that the Defendant Hall 2098. custody. remained in speak to counsel and surround his admis- circumstances which days for the period A of three which short questioning by Decieco and following sion custody remained would individual that of Parker are identical to Roberson2 surrounding pressure the coercive alleviate therefore, in viola- his conviction was un- interrogation about an subsequent right against of his fifth amendment tion crime, accused had not because the related agree. this I cannot self-incrimination. On of a the advice and consultation yet had is created lawyer. presumption The Supreme Court in Roberson ex the individual is is that until the Edwards protects rule plained that speak coun- opportunity to afforded the inherently compelling pressures the against any subsequent Miranda sel, warning is interrogation suspects feel who of custodial pressures cre- questioning insufficient to overcome incapable undergoing such requested respondent had earlier unaware that was arrested at the In the defendant burglary, yet provided, advised of his Miranda advised scene of a counsel who had not rights, immediately indicated that he "want- interrogated rights him about a him of his lawyer answering any questions.” ed a burglary. He an incrimina- 'different obtained days still and still Three later while ting that crime. statement about officer, talking lawyer, to a a different coercive, to be to be of the situa- held and not nature custodial ated However, effect. neither nor Rober- period of along with brief That tion. has been this case. original son violated within elapsed between time which in- subsequent unrelated and the re- captured Defendant Hall was authori- not relieve terrogation should Eddyville penitentiary in Au- turned ques- refrain from obligation to ties of At gust arraignment, of 1988. an attor- presented has been tioning until counsel appointed for the ney was defendant. ability to con- suspect has had and the attorney concerning those spoke to his attorney. Those facts later, or her fer with his Three months a threaten- charges. herein. appear do not penitentiary and concerns ing sent from letter was States. Two the President of the United holding support the facts do these Nor Hall Agents questioned Secret Service recently pronounced in this Court The District Court his involvement. about 879 F.2d 1320 Wolf, v. hearing specifically found held a and Cir.1989). the defendant was Wolf, In Hall protection. Hall waived his Miranda Kentucky District Court brought a questions a few admits he answered pos- criminal charges of theft and on state let- something about the may have known her forged instrument. At session of a there jail, remained in but he was ter. Hall attorney. requested arraignment, Wolf prior already serving a he was because returned to the Wom- Thereafter she was stranger Hall was no sentence. day and before Later that same en’s Jail. fact, In Hall was not penitentiary. state counsel, requested her spoken to she had used in custody” “in as that term has been of Bureau agents of the United States two of Edwards and Roberson. the context Tobacco, appeared Alcohol, Firearms readily argue that was One could the defen- question at the Women’s Jail surroundings the more comfortable within the Miranda agents These read dant. interrogated than the two he was in which waiver, her, and she warnings obtained agents. Service Secret confessed her involvement subsequently this Court set aside Hall would have her former kill of the wife a scheme finding guilty because District Court’s that Rober- boyfriend. This Court found escape attorney for the state he had an inter- from this second protected Wolf son ignore his charges. Hall would have us was though the defendant rogation, even Taking protection. waiver of his Miranda unrelated state being questioned for two conclusion, logical argument to its Hall’s charges. and federal attorney on he had an decision, Quoting directly from the Wolf charge, any future waiv- an unrelated state clearly stated: we warnings would be inef- Miranda er of his this case the facts of find that on [W]e true, though even fective. That would be invoked violated: Wolf Roberson was appointed counsel spoken Hall had to his right to counsel at amendment her fifth charges. Hall would have regarding those in custo- she remained arraignment; approach, that once a adopt an this Court attorney dy not consult with and did other has had counsel defendant gave she time until after from that activity, or not he was whether criminal statement; agents, not the ATF convicted, charged the au- formally or ever Wolf, interrogation that re- initiated the speaking to precluded were thorities Id. at 1322. in the statement. sulted activity his coun- him about new counsel, case, re- requested Wolf be the presence. Defendant sel’s This would interrogated the jail, rights and was turned to if Hall waived all of even federal inves- if day an unrelated self-incrimination and even same about counsel and to his spoken voluntarily not to counsel. confessed tigation. Wolf had he thereafter essence, Therefore, es- In Hall would have the concerns which were involvement. deny forever clearly appeared adopt with- us a rule which would poused in Roberson warning and proper those Miranda waivers under the use of Miranda any charge or inter- subsequent waiver on presumptively circumstances have previous activity. This Court cannot attor- individual had an after an rogation, Accordingly, judg- reach that result. so no matter what That would be ney. or is AFFIRMED. the activities ment of the District Court was between time frame spo- individual had ever or not the KENNEDY, Judge, concurring. clearly is not the This his counsel. ken to protection espoused of the Edwards intent Although the concerns of United States This Court cannot extend in Roberson. (6th Cir.1989) and Wolf, 879 F.2d 1320 v. protec- far. To extend protection that 675, 108 486 U.S. Arizona would create a wishes Appellant tion as (1988) 100 L.Ed.2d 704 are contemplated above. situation case, degree to a lesser this present fifth amendment invoked his custody. request- He had defendant escape arraignment on at his to counsel pending charge another ed only reference within charges. The provided. He thus falls one had been attorney that an to establish record of Roberson. The fact under the stricture arraign following his for Hall substan- that he had been of Hall transcript evidence ment comes in may not may time or have length tial hearing. suppression at his himself held inter- “pressures of custodial increased the right It is not clear what App. at 16. Joint importantly, rogation.” Most arraignment. asserting at his Hall was provide bright a line for intended to However, in held this Court Wolf enforcement communi- members of the law that the does not indicate the record where interrogate sus- they could ty as to when request to limit their intended defendant bright The they could not. pects and when the sixth amend only that of for counsel to the courts as line rule is for the benefit of right was in ment, as to what any doubt well. in resolved favor had to be voked the court judgment in the of I concur 1323, citing v. at Cervi Id. defendant. of the confes- I believe the admission since (11th 702, 706-707 Cir. F.2d Kemp, 855 under The statute was harmless. sion holding that 1988) Edwards and (applying makes it a convicted defendant was is arraignment made at for counsel threatening the Presi- letter crime to mail a right to fifth amendment of an assertion States. of the United or Vice President dent Fairman, 813 counsel); v. that “it’s handwriting expert testified Cir.1987)(invocation right (7th of 117 F.2d virtually cer- is strong probability which triggers Ed arraignment at to counsel it.” The he wrote tain that [defendant] Therefore, amend wards). Hall’s fifth 22 of the fingerprint expert testified self-incrimination right against ment were defen- on the letter fingerprints 27 charge underlying state to the protected as Further, appears name as Hall’s dant’s. established, as has been escape. But of letter and his signatures to the one of the in can be nor Roberson neither Edwards of the letter. in the contents first name appeal grant this terpreted within admitted, confes- “[Ajbsent improperly continuing protection a blanket Hall such sion, beyond a reasonable doubt it is clear . circumstanc The facts and ad infinitum returned a verdict jury would have subject those cases of were the es that guilty.” Wolf, 879 F.2d at of To have appear herein. clearly do not protection Hall’s waiver RYAN, Judge, concurring and circumstanc these facts on overturned separately. injustice princi only do es would affirming the judgment I concur in the being protected in Edwards ples that are separately defendant’s conviction and write Roberson, also remove an would but Roberson, v. emphasize that Arizona fifth amend ability to his waive individual’s 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 486 108 past merely at some privilege ment Wolf, (1988), and United States And that would be counsel. point he had totally distin- Cir.1989), are F.2d 1320 though individual had the case even and, consequently, case regarding guishable from this with his counsel fully conferred police interrogated by he on cases are in- before was those the rules announced days another matter three later. applicable here. Hall, hand, on the other who was court I. arraigned escape from state is that an accused The rule Roberson affirmatively to custody charge, responded police for a arrest and under inquiry whether he to be the court’s wished who, offense, being warned serious escape represented by counsel for the Arizona, 384 U.S. under Miranda v. thereby invoking prosecution; confinement in- 16 L.Ed.2d 694 right amendment to counsel. a sixth right fifth amendment to counsel vokes a his fifth amend- When Roberson invoked deal with the by expressing a desire to arrestee right to counsel he was an ment counsel, may only through not be police custody had been who has interrogated further until counsel invoked his few moments. When to him unless he initiates made available right amendment to counsel was sixth police. If communication with the court, pro- participating judicial in a interrogated before counsel he is further custo- ceeding. He had been continuous him, there is a has been made available prisoner Kentucky in a dy as a sentenced “any subsequent waiver presumption that liberty penitentiary years, was at state has the Miranda to remain silent] [of month, escapee for a and had been as an behest, authorities’ and not come at the three prison approximately returned to instigation, and is itself suspect’s own Hall, prior arraignment. un- months to his compelling ‘inherently product not, invoking did when like interrogation] pressures’ the custodial [of or at amendment to counsel sixth voluntary choice of the purely and not the time, to deal with other indicate desire Roberson, 486 U.S. suspect.” Arizona v. only through counsel. police the 675, 681, 2093, 2098, 100 L.Ed.2d interrogated by state offi- was Roberson (1988). three an unrelated offense within cials on extension of The Roberson rule is an days indicating, explicitly, a desire to Arizona, 451 U.S. Edwards through police only counsel. deal with the 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 and was interrogated by federal authori- Hall was in by Supreme the the fashioned Court three an unrelated offense some ties on totally of facts so different from context appointment of counsel in months after the as to make it the facts of this case evident proceeding arraignment court the state to rule was not intended that Roberson’s nothing about his during which he said kind before apply in a case of the us. willingness speak police. Where- important distinction between The first right as fifth amendment Roberson’s differing and this case is the honored, had not been consult in the two cases in which the circumstances appointed Hall and he counsel had been for The circum- right to counsel was invoked. prior his counsel months had met with they empha- important stances are interrogation. challenged the significance of the size the constitutional The factual differences between Rober- invoking a fifth amend- difference between substantial; this case are so sub- son and right ment rather than a sixth amendment it that the rule stantial that is evident Supreme distinction the to counsel—a inapplica- is for Roberson’s facts fashioned emphasized in Roberson. Immedi- Court ble here. suspi- arrested on ately after Roberson was burglary, Miranda cion of was II. by arresting officer. warnings Rober- lawyer case controlled United responded that he “wanted a Neither is this son answering any questions”; thereby Wolf, 879 F.2d 1320 Cir. States v. 1989). right majority In of a divided invoking a fifth amendment to coun- Wolf unimpressed by importance provided panel to Roberson was sel. Counsel was case, ambiguity is no about In this there fifth amend- of the distinction between “to expressed to coun- an intention whether a sixth amendment ment and in Ro- emphasized police through counsel.” Supreme Court deal with the sel observed, simply, majority whatever of such berson. There is no evidence although Wolfs counsel addition, Wolf was intention. In whereas anwas ab- arraignment, since there anat twenty-four interrogated hours of within Wolf in- indicating that of “evidence sence invoking her being placed custody invoca- request to the limit her tended to counsel, interrogated Hall was right to coun- tion of the sixth amendment rights three months waived be sel, intent as [would ... doubts for him and after counsel was consti- protecting favor resolved] of state correctional while claim_” at 1323. 879 F.2d tutional inmate. Hall authorities as a sentenced court’s merits of the Whatever Wolf he lived. Wolf had interviewed where amendment fifth sixth treatment con- Hall had not consulted with counsel. exten- and its distinction right to counsel appointed counsel. sulted with rule announced sion Roberson, derived The rule announced in controlling here because rule is not Wolfs applied Wolf, and for Edwards significantly two are facts of the cases here, is not relies on the defendant different. sixth amendment applicable unless Hall’s 27, 1986. May on had been arrested represent him in the counsel to the next overnight and jail held in She made three escape from confinement arraignment morning appeared court challenged Miranda months before the charge. to make restitution a failure long that had waiver, proceedings and for wished court she by the Asked terminated, reasonably be con can since her, represent appointed to counsel have to deal with “expressed desire as an strued The court immedi- she replied that did. she Ed only through counsel.” Later public defender. appointed the ately wards, The facts demonstrate supra. consulting with coun- day, and before Therefore, the Ro clearly it cannot. Alcohol, by federal sel, visited Wolf was to this case. inapplicable is rule berson advised Tobacco, agents who and Firearms Miranda, supra. rights under her of Moreover, by some stretch of if even stating that she wished signed a form Wolf might conclude one imagination rights, then and her Miranda to waive controlling are and rules of Roberson Wolf in a scheme to participation to confessed demonstrate case here, facts of this boyfriend’s wife. former kill her his Mi- expressly waived that when recognized that Roberson The court interrogated by rights when randa only if the to the case applicable could be 8, 1989, three Decicco on November Officer that Wolf’s indicated facts consulting Wolf after months expressed de- counsel amounted case, presumption in the state counsel through police only with the “to deal sire product “itself that his waiver ” at 1322 Wolf, 879 F.2d v. counsel.” U.S. compelling pressures’ ‘inherently Arizona, 451 U.S. v. (quoting Edwards was rebutted. interrogation his custodial 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 477, 484, 101 S.Ct. separately concur I take the trouble to in- (1981)). found such an The court firmly convinced I am ambiguity of the evi- tent because totally inappli- are and that Roberson Wolf when she asked intent about Wolf’s dence case, I am also because but to this cable arraignment counsel be if say that unable reinterrogated by po- she was and because in admit- violated, error the resultant were twenty-four hours authorities within lice incriminating statement was ting Hall’s invoking to counsel a reasonable doubt. beyond harmless consult opportunity she had and, however such There was no error attorney. with an therefore, judgment in the court’s I concur

of affirmance. Jr., Ewing, Atty., Timo-

W. Hickman DiScenza, Atty., thy R. Asst. U.S. Van S. Vincent, Memphis, plaintiff-ap- argued, pellee. Durand, Thomason,

Kemper argued, B. Hendrix, Johnson, Mitchell, Harvey, Blanchard, Jr., Peete, Higgs, America, W. Otis STATES UNITED Armstrong, Memphis, for defen- Higgs & Plaintiff-Appellee, dant-appellant. CRISMON, Defendant-Appellant. JONES, Gertie MARTIN and Before FEIKENS, Judges, District Senior No. 89-6056. Judge.* Appeals, Court of

Sixth Circuit. PER CURIAM. Defendant-Appellant, Gertie Crismon Argued April 1990. (“defendant”), possession was convicted of Decided June posses- with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. intent to sell She sion with essentially appeals, asserting four errors: (1) grant defendant’s oral motion failure to suppress as the conse- evidence obtained probable made quence of an arrest consent; (2) coerced denial of cause and/or (3) acquittal; failure defendant’s motion for doubt; prove guilt beyond a reasonable (4) grant failure to a new trial warrant- jury charges and instruc- ed erroneous negated tions that defendant’s affirm. cross-examination. We

I. BACKGROUND 7, 1988, Memphis, Ten- On December nessee, airport officer Drake ob- flight defendant on a served arrive Angeles, Defendant was Los California. baggage going observed in and out of looking lobby times as if door several suitcases and a someone. She claimed two garment then observed to bag. She was airport shuttle to the take a Hotel Sheraton Sheraton. Drake decided to follow be-

Officer thought suspi- behavior cause he thought her attire— cious * Feikens, by designation. gan, sitting Senior United States Honorable John Judge District for the Eastern District of Michi-

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Billy Hall

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 11, 1990

Citation: 905 F.2d 959

Docket Number: 89-5984

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.