United States v. Hawkins
3:07-cr-00135 | M.D. La. | Oct 31, 2007
Case 3:07-cr-00135-BAJ-RLB Document43 10/31/07 Page10f5
f}.‘?'
UNlTED STATES DlSTRlCT COURT#‘~“~#"i?§`:
uNiTEo sTA'rEs oF AMERicA g , c trw
vERsus cR\ivnNAL AcTioN
cLEoN JERMArNE HAvaiNs No. 07-135-A
RUL|NG ON lV|OT|ON |N LlM|NE
Defendant, Cleon Jermaine Havvkins, Was originally charged in a two-count
indictment for possession With intent to distribute five grams or more of a substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, and cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1 ), and for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(0)(1)(A) (doc. 16).1
This matter is now before the court on the government’s unopposed motion
in limine (doc. 25) for a pre-trial determination of the voluntariness of defendants
alleged confession relative to possession of a firearm and drugs recovered during
the search of his home.
An evidentiary hearing on the motion Was held on August 15, 2007, after
Which the government filed a post-hearing brief (doc. 40). Defendant has failed to
reply. Trial is scheduled for Tuesday, November 27, 2007.
, 1On September 19, 2007, asuperseding indictmentwas filed (doc. 35). lt is identicalto the
original indictment in all respects except that it increases the drug amount in Count One from 5 to
50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. Defendant has
pled not guilty to the superseding indictment (doc. 41).
1
Case 3:07-Cr-00135-BA.]-RLB Document43 10/31/07 Page20f5
The government alleges in memorandum that on June 6, 2007, defendants
home was searched pursuant to a warrant that was obtained based on observations
of activities “consistent with drug trafficking activities” at the home.2 These activities
were confirmed through the controlled purchase of crack at the home shortly before
application for the warrant.
Upon finding defendant in the bedroom of the home, the government alleges
that he attempted to flee through a window but was apprehended after a struggle
A subsequent search of defendant’s person revealed drugs in the waistband of his
pants and $84 in his pocket. Detectives also found a shotgun resting on the
bedroom dresser (a few feet away from where defendant was found), $3,600 and
three live shotgun shells in a dresser drawer, hydrocodone pills and marijuana in the
kitchen, and a small digital scale.
The government brings the motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a), which
mandates that before a confession is received into evidence, the court must, out of
the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness ln determining
voluntariness, the court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the giving
of the confession3, including:
2Atthe hearing, Specia| Agent l\/like Desmond ofthe Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives testified that the search warrant was executed at defendant's home, located at
1550 Robinson Street in Baker, l_ouisiana, by members of the Delta Task Force, a multi-agency
force organized to investigate narcotics violations
3"‘Confession” is defined as “any confession of guilt to any criminal offense or any self-
incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3501(e).
2
Case 3:07-cr-00135-BA.J-RLB Document43 10/31/07 PageSofB
(1) the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of
the defendant, if it was made after arrest and before
arraignment;
(2) whether defendant knew of the nature of the offense
with which he was charged or of which he was suspected
at the time of making the confession;
(3) whether or not defendant was advised or knew that he
was not required to make any statement and that any such
statement could be used against him;
(4) whether or not defendant had been advised prior to
t questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel; and
(5) whether or not defendant was without the assistance
of counsel when questioned and when giving the
confession.
The presence or absence of any of the above need not be conclusive of the issue
of voluntariness 18 U.S.C. 3501(b).
Special Agent l\/like Desmond was the sole witness at the hearing. He
testified that defendant was arrested on June 6, 2007 and made statements that
same day. Defendant was originally indicted on June 21, 2007 (doc. 16) and
arraigned on June 27, 2007 (doc; 22). Defendant has put forth no argument that the
21-day time period between arrest and arraignment weighs in favor of
involuntariness
As for the second factor, Desmond testified as follows:
l specifically asked him about the narcotics that were
found on him. l\/lr. Hawkins initially stated that he didn’t
have any drugs on him. l reminded him that officers had
found drugs inside his pants That’s when he said he did
Case 3:07-cr-00135-BA.]-RLB Document43 10/31/07 Page4of5
have the drugs; that he had obtained them that morning.
The fact that there was also a firearm that was found in
the room that he was arrested in, and that firearm
belonged to him as well.
(doc. 34, p. 8)
l~`actors three and four force inquiry into the propriety of the administration of
M/'randa rights. Desmond testified that Detective l\/lurphy told him (Desmond) that
although defendant would not sign the Miranda waiver, Lieutenant Chris Green had
read defendant his Miranda rights prior to Desmond’s involvement in the matter
(and, therefore, prior to the confession) and that defendant had not invoked those
rights Desmond testified furtherthat defendant himself acknowledged having been
given Mirar)da warnings and that prior to being questioned by Desmond,
acknowledged that he understood those rights
As for the fifth factor, the testimony revealed that defendant was without the
assistance of counsel when questioned and when giving the statement, but
Desmond’s testimony is clear that defendant had specifically waived his right to
counsel in advance of the confession.
After examining each of the above factors, the court concludes that
defendant’s statements were voluntary pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a). The
conclusion is supported by Desmond’s testimony that none of the officers who
questioned defendant brandished their weapons, made promises, or used coercive
tactics
Case 3:07-cr-00135-BA.]-RLB Document 43 10/31/07 PageBofB
CONCLUSlON
Accordingly, the governments unopposed motion in limine (doc. 25) is hereby
GRANTED and defendants confession may be received into evidence at trial of this
matter.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 31, 2007.
510/790 70900,\
N V. PARKER
lTED STATES DlSTR|CT JUDGE
l\/llDDLE DlSTRlCT OF LOUlS|ANA