United States v. Joseph Hallford

made have and would not of counsel advice America, of UNITED STATES not re had he expenditure the committee Appellant Craig from counsel.” authorization ceived court take did Br. the district 43-44. But of advice “reli[ance] the defendants’ HALLFORD, Appellee. Joseph Daniel U.S. Craig counsel” into .consideration, for 15-3003. No. Senate, F.Supp.3d at notwithstand expressly answer ing interrogatory Appeals, of Court United States Interrogas. reliance, First Set such waived District of Columbia Circuit. 166).24 (J.A. N o. .court’s 15, Argued Oct. hot did out such reliance conclusion that im that counseled factors other weigh the 4, 2016. Decided March Craig Sen penalty, position not constitute ate, F.Supp.3d

an abuse discretion.

V reasons, we conclude foregoing

For the finding not err in

that the district court did (cid:127) unlawfully converted appéllants personal-úse

campaign contributions Craig’s effort to

spending them on Senator plea. Nor did guilty

withdraw by ordering the

court abuse its discretion '$197;535tó the United disgorge

Senator penalty of pay a civil Treasury

States - $45,000. Accordingly, judgment are of the district court

remedial orders

Affirmed. n case,” (J.A. regarding this No. 5 remedies Interrogs. at 24. See First Set of 166) upon query (stating, response to a as not claim reliance ad- “Defendants do n counsel”). on advice counsel reliance vice in the Court’s decision “should be a factor custody And was Clause? v. Ari meaning of within zona, 1602, 16 (1966), when inter L.Ed.2d giving Miranda warn him without viewed rendering inad ings, thus his statements missible? Saybolt, U.S. Attor-

David Assistant- P. appellant. for With ney, argued the cause I. Machen, Ronald C. him on briefs were Jr., Attorney at the the brief time in his car Hallford left Alabama father’s Trosman, filed, H. Elizabeth Elizabeth overnight to District of Co- and drove Friedman, Danello, J. Assis- and Michael on Mall that he could be lumbia so Attorneys. tant U.S. afternoon, 5, 2013, for the next November March,” out to “Million Mask which turned Jeffress, Assistant Federal

Jonathan S. (Hallford nor a million be-neither a march Defender, argued ap- the cause Public for attended). people that about estimated him on the brief wás A.J. pellee. With Kramer, in front- of the participants gathered Defender. Federal Public “Guy wearing Fawkes” House White WILKINS, Before: and BROWN old, Hallford, years ar- masks. then'32 RANDOLPH, Judges, Senior Circuit gathering wearing rived at such Judge. Circuit mask confronted officers of the Secret Service, his opening coat show that he by filed Opinion the Court Senior unarmed, demanding me! “Shoot Judge Circuit RANDOLPH. the offi- me!” There no evidence Shoot dissenting part in Opinion provocation. cers to his responded concurring Judge Circuit part filed day, Rangers Park Service Later WILKINS. Hallford at the Korean War encountered RANDOLPH, Judge: Circuit Senior near, Memorial, Lincoln Memorial. grand jury Joseph Rangers indicted D. Park out “sick federal of the filled One Hallford for firearms offenses. The Unit- stating that com- person” report order, district court’s appeals ed States his plained missing medication for about evidentiary sup- hearing, after issued an appeared he hemophilia, that weak and pressing Hallford’s statements disoriented, that he had driven to Wash- Service, and bar- United States Secret Alabama, ington from and that he could ring .introducing from government parked where his he had remember firearms, incendiary an items—loaded de- Rangers car. Park called an ambulance vice, vest, grade bullet-proof military re- for him but when arrived Hallford it objects—recovered ammunition and other in, get “stating that he been fused had illegally parked the car near the in this before would al- condition be National Mall. Instead, right.” took a'cab and, it, find his car when he to locate failed questions.

There two Did the are basic take him to the emer- he had the driver seizure and search of Hallford’s car result Washington Hospi- gency George room rights from a under violation of Hallford’s Fifth Due Process tal. Amendment hospital, complained At the car—parked vicinity bleeding hemophilia. as a of his the Lincoln result He Memorial—had attract- been ing had driven the District the attention of stated the Park An Service. participate from Alabama to the “Million officer ticketed the car On 5 for November being illegally parked. Mask March.” He told staff members that morning, The next by- shot “he wanted the Secret Ser- November another Park officer Service placed ... so parents vice own tag could “abandoned vehicle” car, agency.” designating He to “bash the threatened doc- it to be towed. Later that in” if give day, tor’s head the doctor did not him still officer ticketed another the car pain again parking medication. He said that he “didn’t for a violation. kids, have already [he] would have killed While Hallford was transit to United “I [him]self.” He also stated that Center, Medical agents Bri- Secret Service not kill I people, they rather would rather- an apd Fox John Maher at George arrived suffer.” He that he to “hurt said wanted Washington Hospital to him. interview government.” Hospital personnel, un- agents The were “protective members of a remarks, derstandably concerned about his intelligence squad” charged with investi- decided to transfer Hallford to United gating unusual in interest Secret Service “involuntary Medical Center for an psych “protectees”—such as the and President evaluation.” See D.C.Code §§ 21-521-to Agent Vice President. Fox had conducted explained

-522. doctor to Hallford the interviews, some 200 about half of which for “rationale and need involuntary admis- of people who had health “mental meantime, sion.” In the member learning issues.” After that Hallford had hospital’s security staff called the Secret transferred, already agents been re- Operations Service Center that a report at George Washington mained Hospital to man Joseph named Hallford had come to ask staff members about Hallford’s state- room, emergency in physi- he was ments, behavior, his and his medical condi- disturbed, cal pain possibly mentally and agents tion. The then drove to United that he said he wanted Secret Service Medical they they After Center. arrived him, although shoot he was unpre- joined Hallford and several medical staff calm,” “very dictable he tended and members. proceeded The then to a group that he was scheduled be transferred to lounge. doctor’s facility, another the United Medical Cen- Hallford at a table. took seat The ter, agency an government, the D.C. for agents explained to they him that were not “involuntary psych evaluation.” him to arrest that he not “in and was day, next The November agents around 3 trouble.” proceeding, Before p.m., hospital transferred Hallford to if they “speak asked could about [him] Center, United Medical a more secure fa- George those statements” he made at ¡than cility George Washington Hospital. Washington Hospital. “yes.” Hallford said left, hospital gave Befork Hallford (Agent staff Fox that if testified Hallford had pain left.) him medication a while they later he said “No” would have The reported pain that the his leg in had sub- began general the interview with Also, sided. one of again the nurses ex- biographical questions, asking Hallford plained address, birth, to him the civil commitment his order date of his marital sta- why it had been issued. Hallford tus personal and other information. Hall- “expressed understanding” about the rea- ford told them he been arrested had. sons for temporary checks, his commitment. writing Alabama for bad he before, during the Hallford irtvoluntarily testified that interview

had committed been prescription drugs. he He was abused “was calm. was controlled. He had - . his him about generally state- at times smiled. He— asked nice He Washington- George he, know, Hospital. ments you jokes made few here had happened recounted what Hallford there.” was not handcuffed. He Hallford past explained days over the two not he physically was restrained. When suffering he was from the effects days,1 had he not eaten mentioned that hemophilia. him hospital offered staff a member clothes, chocolate. The wore casual satisfied that agents-were

When tones, spoke in and did conversational posed no threat Hallford Secret y They displa badges weapons. their protectee, they wound down Service give Mi did not Hallford the standard routine questions interview with several They tell warnings. randa him form. Secret interview Service questions door to One was free to end interview. The response, open. lounge frequently owned In the doctor’s firearms. handgun,, a .45 caliber a 12- said had came hospital Doctors and members staff .22 gauge shotgun, and two caliber rifles. during and went Outside interview. where he had When the asked operat lounge, hallway doors were firearms, they said these key with ed cards. When his home Alabama. asked evening, police located Hall- Later that home, where his Hallford considered of just ford’s’ Ohio south car on Drive moment, possibly up for a to a Independence near Lincoln Avenue minute, fire- and then admitted car police Memorial. The searched arms were car he had driven to the medication; a and Hallford’s discovered Saying nothing, District of Columbia. .22 pistol; .45 two caliber semi-automatic Fox Agent up stood and walked out rifles; shotgun; copi- 12-gauge caliber a he,was telephone a While make call. do- ammunition, mili- ous rounds some of of so, ing volunteered to Hallford Agent matches, tary grade; containing bottle a other Maher “there was stuff with, substance, a an Q-tips black coated bad,” vehicle that look such as a of pieces, of metal a live round assortment gasoline, of propane container bottles of rag protruding and from the ammunition a cocktail, a Molotov makings and or the gallon con- top; bottle’s a five cannister kept one. Hallford that he the fire- added' taining gasoline; bulletproof vest. arms The self-defense. asked operable. The firearms were loaded and permission Hallford for to search the car investigation disclosed that Hallford Later

when, if, it and they found to review purchased The fire- them month earlier. his medical records. refused registered in the District arms were requests. both thén The ended Columbia. interview. day, than The Dr. Dierich The interview lasted less an hour. next November Kaiser, suppression hearing, psychia- Fox a United Agent At Medical Center nothing It is it. He unclear if Hallford had eaten that he refused also claimed (cid:127) George before his The staff at slept interview. evening had not on the of November Washington Hospital reported that "Hallford Hospital. George Washington was at while he some, all, hospital-supplied ate but However, hospital indicated that records 6." meals ..'. on 5 and November uninterrupted sleep. periods he had admitted that food he was offered but claims trist, and treated Hallford. Dr. 7-2502.01(a); evaluated § § D.C.Code D.C.Code 7- 2506,01. diagnosed having Kaiser Hallford as “schi disorder”2 based on Hallford’s

zoaffective changes, paranoid unstable mood delu to suppress moved sions, and self-destructive behavior. Dr. Agents statements Fox and Maher. He prescribed Kaiser various medications and claimed his statements “were made See extended Hallford’s commitment. involuntarily and in violation of Miranda.” §§ 21-522 to -523. D.C.Code that, He further argued because his state on Based Haílford’s statements and the involuntary, ments evi car, judge items found in the issued dence found in his car sup “must be him arrest warrant'for on November 8 and as pressed poisonous fruit of the tree.” In police him at arrested United Medical June court held an evidentiary police Local Center.3 informed him of his hearing the suppression motion. On Miranda rights, which he refused to December the district court . grand jury waive. federal him indicted granted suppress motion to Hallford’s both for two violations of federal law and ten his statements the physical evidence. violations of District of in- Columbia law. ruling, In an oral bench the court found volving possession unlawful and interstate Seeret Service violated the. firearms, unregistered transportation rights and that his ammunition, destructive device. See involuntary.4 statements were days Two 5861(d), 5845(f), §§ 5871; 26 U.S.C. later, 922(a)(4), 924(a)(1)(B); §§ the court U.S.C. ordered Hallford—who (see § 22-4504(a)(l), (a-1); su- D.C.Code jail was then in the D.C. note 3 Association, Psychiatric Diag- 2. See American Hallford, F.Supp.3d United States (D.D.C.2015). government nostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disor- asks us to dis (5th ed.2013). regard opinion ders 105-10 the court's written because it gov was handed down four months after the appeal ernment noted its and two months by magistrate 3. A Detention Memorandum a government opening after the filed its brief in judge government indicated the “ob- filing this court. The of a no non-frivolous a tained search warrant for cell [Hallford’s] appeal tice of divests the district court of phone, pictures which contained of indi- jurisdiction aspects "over those of the case wearing posing Guy vidual a Fawkes mask appeal.” in Griggs involved the v. Provident firearms—including with several some of the Co., 56, 58, Consumer Discount 459 U.S. 103 weapons recovered [Hallford’s car]. from 400, (1982) (per S.Ct. 74 L.Ed.2d 225 cu phone picture The also contained a of another riam); DeFries, see United States v. 129 F.3d Guy photosh- individual in a Fawkes mask 1293, (D.C.Cir.1997) curiam). (per 1302 opped looking as the in window of the Oval appeals Some exceptions courts of have made Office at President Obama with the text ‘05th rule, ” see, e.g., Mosley, to this In re 494 F.3d November soon.’ 1320, (11th Cir.2007); Silberkraus, 1328 In re magistrate judge 864, The (9th Cir.2003), concluded that Hall- 869 336 but none of violence, prepared engage ford "was in a opinion them fit case in which the written ultimately the fact that he did not do so is appellant issued months after the has filed its insufficient, given planning appeal, level of brief on as here and in occurred Unit death, apparent Martin, 87, (1st focus on to convince me that ed States v. 97-98 Cir.2008). pose danger community. does not a to the disregard We therefore will Indeed, I may opinion, am concerned pose a (cid:127)written which adds little to the dis Still, threat to the explanation. President.” trict court’s oral we do not entirely possibility foreclose that in some opinion 4. The May court issued a may written case future other circumstances warrant 6, 2015, repeating findings its oral post-appeal and con- of consideration a district court’s n . clusions opinio with few- See embellishments. (2004) (Thomas, J., recognizance joined by on his L.Ed.2d pm)—released own C.J., Scalia, Roberts, J.); Alabama on condition he remain id. at 644- any appeal government might pending 45, J., Kennedy, 2620 (opinion of S.Ct. bring. J., O’Connor, concurring in joined by

judgment). explained As Thomas Justice 2620, Patane, 636, II. 542 U.S. 124 S.Ct. prophylactic rule is a em “the Miranda get we to the whether Before protect ployed against violations of Hall- required suppression Miranda The Self-In Self-Incrimination Clause. statements to the Service ford’s Secret Clause, however, impli is not crimination we discuss the district agents, will by the into cated admission evidence physical suppressed should have court fruit of voluntary statement. found car. Hall- Accordingly, justification there is no very ford’s statements add extending con the Miranda rule this phys- The government’s little case.5 7 It agents, follows unless the significant. is far text.” ical evidence more And Clause, has that the informed us government Process violation Due proceed could Hall- prosecution without stating that his car coerced into ford’s statements the items seized contained Molotov cocktail firearms Br. at Appellant car are admissible. (which may have accelerated the seizure of 24 n. 15. contents), car and its the items found in the’car were See Chavez v. admissible. Court, Supreme adopting a Martinez, 760, 769, 538 U.S. long position Judge Friendly advocated (2003) (plurality 155 L.Ed.2d 984 ago,6 has that the fruit-of-the- determined opinion).8 doctrine, v. Wong see Sun poisonous-tree States, 471, 484-87, 83 United 371 U.S. In determining whether (1963) S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 441 does making coerced Hallford into these in violation of apply to statements taken statements, incriminating court must Elstad, v. Oregon rules. See S.Ct, consider “the Characteristics the accused 304-09, 105 470 U.S. (1985); interrogation.” and the details Pa L.Ed.2d tane, Bustamonte, S.Ct. Schneckloth sup Postscript opposing 5. In a memorandum See J. on Hallford's Mi- Henry Friendly, randa, motion, 266, (1967), pression government in the relied on 279-82 Benchmarks Williams, 431, 448, Nix v. U.S. S.Ct. against privilege 7. The Fifth Amendment's 2501, (1984), argue 81 L.Ed.2d 377 to it person self-incrimination that "No ... states inevitably have discovered the car compelled be shall in criminal case to be its even Hallford made his contents had not against a witness himself....” U.S. Const. agents: in had statements to the car fact amend. V. Service); already (by been discovered the Park designated it had been ticketed twice and was Patane, opinion plurality 8. The in 542 U.S. at towing; impounded, and once a is an car 2620, quoted 124 S.Ct. this statement search, inventory passe is of-the undertaken Chavez, 538 from U.S. 123 S.Ct. at n ger compartment sup At the 1994): trunk. subjected police “those coercive to however, hearing, government pression interrogation protection an have automatic support to in of its submit evidence involuntary declined use of from the their statements (or statements) discovery, parties argument and the inevitable evidence derived from their in ” . apparently any subsequent the table.” treated the issue as "off criminal trial. (1973).9 L.Ed.2d 854 tried to find out S.Ct. mental [Hallford’s] Hall The ultimate physical well-being, notwithstanding- the capac and his ford’s “will”was “overborne they fact that he suffering knew was ity critically im for self-determination disorder, anxiety, mental extreme paired” the agents’ as a result of conduct. serious ailments.” The court add- 225-26, Id. at (quoting Cu agents ed that the “didn’t attempt even to Connecticut, lombe v. appreciate nature of his hemophilic (1961)). 1860, 6 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1037 The pain” condition” and the “severe he was district court’s determination that experiencing. There is evidence that Hall- agents Hallford’s Due Process violated in pain ford was when 'took to himself rights findings rested three critical George Washington Hospital emergen- fact. government argues The each of cy room on November but there is no findings these constituted clear error. See supporting evidence ap- the district court’s' Reed, parent assumption that Hallford was still (D.C.Cir.2008). otherwise, in pain, severe or by the time was, findings The first of these agents interviewed him on the after- court, words the district that Hall- noon of November 6 at United Medical by agents, ford “was summoned for an transferred, Center. Before staff interview, not if he asked would submit to George Washington Hospital 'adminis- shows interview.” The record other him; pain thereafter, tered to’ medicine interview, beginning wise. Before Hallford told doctors and nurses Hallford, Agent Fox speak asked “can we pain leg his had what subsided. So you [your] ?” about statements ... Hall- evidentiary support is there for the district “yes.” ford said the dis defends court’s agents that the conclusion failed to. trict finding ground court’s on the that his ” “appreciate” pain during Hallford’s the in- agreeing agents “speak to let the to him During terview? see none. his inter- We . speak mean he consented to nothing view said and exhibited them. Appellee at 31. This is clever Br.. nothing support that would court’s cogent. but not must un have finding. All indications are to the con- agents requesting derstood his trary. finding As to the that the court’s permission engage in a conversation. agents attempting were remiss .in to learn only Not did the tell him condition, statements, wanted to “find out” his about there is abun- about questions. but also Hallford contrary. answered their dant The was no did, There evidence that fact, ask and learn numerous details overbearing asking coercive about Hallford’s condition. After discover- permission. finding The court’s district ing already that he had been..transferred clearly erroneous. Center, United Medical stayed George Washington Hospital The district court also found that - agents “did not know and hadn’t even ask staff members about .Hallford. put Prandy-Binett, 9. We hesitate to in terms of "to- this the v. States circumstances,” tality (D.C.Cir. 1993) phrase (on of the a that pet. reh’g). for It us tells appears opinions dealing in some with the nothing about even which are circumstances confronting of issues us sort this case. (surely, not all circumstances mat relevant opinions "totality” Sometimes treat the these ter), nothing proba it reveals- about the and "test,” phrase as it were a it if which is not. any particular tive value of circumstance. phrase “non-descriptive.” The is itself United put explaining why they at did out an when he arrived the agents that learned alert to his car their interview- leg bleeding, find before emergency room his was that is disorder, began. But no. evidence even there that he he suffered from a blood believed, 'agents or that whatsoever he had antidepressants, had abused believe, any to that Hallford had reason paranoid expressed delusions about. firearms, any much less that he had owned hospital staff de government, and is no him in the District. There with involuntarily that he should be termined evidentiary court’s basis for district pose to a appeared committed because he finding deception clearly exroneous “danger to or others....”10 La [himself] trickery. ter, Center, agents at United Medical observed condition first hand. corrected, findings we With these knowing]” “tr[ying] or Far from.“not court’s conclu cannot the district accept find out [Hallford’s] .mental sion that about Hallford’s statements

well-being,” agents diligently inquired a items in his car from “substan resulted into, about, great a both. learned deal police tial element coercive conduct.” clearly The district in its find court erred 157, 164, Connelly, v. Colorado 479 U.S. ing of fact. (1986). 107 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 473

Third, court the district found The agreed to the interview. agents and “snooker[ed deceived Hallford agents pressure him to so did' do gun into posses an admission him] way. than The interview lasted less ” .,.. Significant police may sion deception not, as in setting an hour. The Mi bear on or confession statement 448-58, randa for see at example, 384 U.S. Illinois, coerced, Lynumn has been see v. atmo police-dominated 86 S.Ct. in a 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d straightforward sphere. agents The asked (1963), engaged agents but the here tones', questions in conversational the hos trickery. neither nor When deception and, food, gener staff him pital offered interview, they began agents asked al, nicely,” him ac “treat[ed] would, questions if answer cording psychiatrist to a defense-retained statements” to staff at “about [his] six months later: who evaluated Hallford “in George Washington Hospital and refer Hughes, See United States (1st ence statements....” As the [those] Cir.2011). no made concluded, interview followed promises or to Hallford threats and was protocol, asking generic Culombe, Secret Sex-vice deprived of no essentials. See questions evex-y ask interviewee. 1860. The dis One of about Hallford’s questions trict court that “the nev mentioned ownership of firearms. This amounted anything dispel er belief [Hallford’s] deception, according to the required, district court. ..." that the interview was why. agents already hospital, If going We do not he was leave see knew, just suspected, blessing.” or that Hall- their This of even he would need fix-earms, is no that Hallford such a ford’s car course assumes had contained "physi- private application permits ... and make hospital District of law Columbia purposes of qualified psychologist for thereto for cian or ... who has his admission diagnosis” up person mentally emergency reason is ill to believe that observation and, illness, likely injure § to 48 hours. D.C.Code 21—521. Detention because may up immediately to an additional seven himself or if he is not extended for others warrant, detained,” to, § days by See id. 21-522 to take the court order. "without person custody, transport public -523. into him to a

859 belief, short, may government district court said In we the which the believe car Nothing agents “true or not.”11 the proving by preponder ried its burdén-of a enter said would have caused' Hallford to ance that Hallford’s state belief, if in fact tain such a he entertained voluntary ments the meaning within nothing sug it. And Hallford did or said Lego the Due Process Clause. See v. thinking gested agents to the that he was U.S. 477, 489, 619, Twomey, 404 92 S.Ct. hospital.12 were his ticket out (1972). 30 It L.Ed.2d 618 follows that the Hall- agents generally aware of suppressing physical district erred in court before ford’s mental' condition evidence derived from his statements. they interviewed him. The district court George stated' arrived Hallford III Washington Hospital pain” “severe but neglected to no mention us brings This to district in pain evidence he was still when the finding court’s Hallford was “in [Mi agents day interviewed-him Hall- later. custody” inter randa]. when problems. psychiatric ford did have Even rejected him. have viewed Because we so, condition, by defendant’s mental it “a underpinnings for critical factual the dis from, apart self and its relation official finding, trict court’s Miranda we do not coercion,” inquiry cannot “dispose of the is sufficient believe record for us to into constitutional ‘voluntariness.’” Con -Determining decide issue. “whether á 164, nelly, 515. The 479 U.S. S.Ct. custody purposes for defendant was charges federal in this case related inquiry. Miranda” is a “fact intensive” car, yet Molotov cocktail Hall- found in.the Bautista, 1140, 145 F.3d ford’s this statement to.the about (10th Cir.1998); see Thompson v. is, was unsolicited. That volun Keohane, 457, S.Ct. no teered information when (1995) (Thomas, J., 133 L.Ed.2d 383 dis was pending. strong And there evi is (“The senting) custody inquiry Miranda dence that Hallford’s will not “over ... requires ... number of fact-inten Schneckloth, 226, borne.” 412 U.S. at sive, (internal quotation close calls.” marks concluded, S.Ct. 2041. As the interview omitted)): -than attempting- ‘Rather request agents’ Hallford refused the evidence, weigh case to we remand the to a car consent search and he court permit refused to district determine whether examine See, custody. Hallford was in medical records. II, Cir.2007). psychiatrist George 11. Dr. John S. O’Brien It decision of the was the defense Hallford six retained 'evaluate Washington commit him. staff to medical interview, months after the in his testified doctor, nurse, explained this to and later a “opinion” thought “were trans him. He said He was understood. - his [of Center].” ticket out 'United Medical ported George Washington Hospital qualifies One wonders how this statement as United Center staff in an Medical medical diagnosis opinion. As medical or a medical circumstances, . In these it ambulance.. text, in the the district court did not stated why during hard to see interview. accept opinion Dr. O’Brien’s as fact. have had “reason to think that power "per have official over him....” All listeners indications are that Hallford Fields, — U.S. —, imposed only this detention as ceived] Howes v. examination, not. purposes of a (2012) medical (quoting L.Ed.2d 17 Illinois Coon, police interrogation.” v. Wilson Perkins, S.Ct. (8th Cir.1987); see also United (1990)). 110 L.Ed.2d 243 Jamison, 623, 629-32 (4th States v. 860 Chase, is re- 179 District is reversed and case

e.g., Fed.Appx. States v. United (D.C.Cir.2006) for the court to reconsider (remanding consid manded district 58 applicability. interrogation Miranda’s er whether a “[Miranda] place”). took ordered. So court found that

The district WILKINS, Judge, dissenting in Circuit if was “not asked he would submit part: part concurring in and focused on to an interview” and then involuntary com conditions depart opinion I must from the Court’s mitment to “freedom conclude'that that of the District concluding three sufficiently “restrain[ed]” movement” was clearly findings factual erro- Court’s See Howes v. implicate Miranda. neous, agree I but that the Government — 1181, 1189, Fields, U.S. —, that proven has Hallford’s statements (2012). As to the court’s 182 L.Ed.2d Fifth Amend- voluntary under the already that finding, have held factual we ment’s Due Process Clause. As to Hallford’s clearly it was erroneous. (cid:127) ably láys out opinion' Court’s commitment, involuntary “simply this was sequence of that led to Hallford’s events analysis, in not the last.” step first Agents Fox interaction with Secret Service hospitalizations mandatory Id. Not all are (collectively agents”), “the Maher See, custody. e.g., tantamount Miranda repeat background I here. need (3d Larkins, Reinert 379 F.3d However, solely the Court’s focus on the Cir.2004) (holding suspect that a was not evidence that undermines the District interroga custody though in even findings represents, my Court’s factual ted in an and was “never told ambulance view, respectful failure adhere to the its free to or free not to he was leave employ of review deferential we standard v. Mar answer United States questions”); evaluating a District factual when Court’s tin, (9th Cir.1985) (hold 781 F.2d all, findings. After ing suspect custody was not in even findings A trial court’s of fact enti- are though “questioning place took ... at the presumption to a are cor- tied leave”). hospital” free to was “not rect, displace only we will if them Indeed, “not police questioning all is coer (1) findings are “without substantial cive,” many interrogations “there evidentiary support or ... induced fairly nothing will be that could be called law”; application of an erroneous Henry compulsion....” J. Friendly, (2) “on the entire [we are] evidence Miranda, Postscript on Benchmarks left with the definite and firm conviction remand, 274. On the district court should that a mistake has been committed.” ques take care to answer “the additional tion whether the relevant environment Dillon, 738 F.3d presented] inherently the same coercive (D.C.Cir.2013) (alteration original) pressures type as the of station house Carmen, (quoting Cuddy v. Howes,

questioning at issue in Miranda.” (D.C.Cir.1985)). Accordingly, “we 132 S.Ct. at 1190. may reverse a trial court’s factual find- though [we] convinced had ings ‘even

IV. fact, sitting been as the trier of [we] Accordingly, weighed differently.’” judg- district court’s have Obama, suppressing ment evidence Barhoumi v. (D.C.Cir.2010) Bes- (quoting found in the car Hallford Anderson v. drove . City, A. semer S.Ct. We identified ourselves We ex (1985)). plained why they 84 L.Ed.2d 518 “In evaluat we were And there. security department. reached out to the challenge ing a- to district court’s factual weigh piece each findings, ‘we do Q. you Did ask to Mr. Hall- interview isolation, in but all of the evidence consider ford?

evidence taken as whole.’” Id. at A. Yes. Obama, (quoting Awad 608 F.3d Q. they any way did And' indicate in (D.C.Cir.2010)). Considering this deferen they going try that to to make that review, I tial cannot standard conclude happen? clearly that the District Court erred in A. They they told us that would reach finding agents that summoned Hall- security out to the department and—and interview, agents ford for an that the used there, that if just we that they waited interview, deception conducting in or their would—someoné to would be there as- agents dispel that did not sist us. necessary belief that the interview was for Thereafter, A. security 196. officers UMC his release.1 agents escorted to secure area the fourth floor hospital of the where Take, instance, for District Court’s subsequently hallway. Agent entered finding by that Hallford “was summoned Fox explained in entry their this manner: interview, for an agents if he not'asked arid, hallway “We went into "the as we would submit to interview.” A. 685.2 into hallway, open went was an Considering evidence, all the taken as a ús, door in hospital front and a staff wholé, finding District Court’s there, person standing was then clearly majority erroneous. The relies 'staff, hospital along walked two three asking Agent Fox’s if the Hallford with Hallford.” A. hallway Mr. 197. speak could to him about statements. ' Furthermore, was not patient accessible. George Washington Hospital made at Agent testimony Suggests Fox’s (“GW’). However, Maj. Op. at 857. personnel UMC to the deferred Agent testimony Fox’s also reveals that “[t]hey just'looked agents] because at [the (“UMC”) although United Center Medical you go and said ... in this do want personnel escorted Hallford to the inter- right just room agents] here? And [the view, personnel only upon so said, agents] okay.” followed. A. [The agents’ request: Agent person 197. Fox was last Q. you got What" did do you when enter the interview room. There was no regarding language United Medical? what personnel" escorting UMC used Hallford A. parked We out front. We walked Agent to the Fox Finally, interview. nev- in, again, lounge, to the visitors’ er informed that he was free to desk, check-in and identified ourselves leave or he was free terminate the clerk the desk. Taking interview. this evidence as a all whole, Q. happened? What I am not left with the “definite and my colleagues throughout I with opinion concur that the Dis 2. The use of "A.” this- clearly finding trict Court erred in Appel- Appendix indicates for citation physica did not ascertain Hallford’s lant. l majori condition the reasons stated ty opinion. Maj. Op. See at 857-58. e However, Maj. Op. District at 859. Dis firm conviction” that th Court See concluding that the sum testimony erred John trict Court heard Dr. Dillon, w. moned for an intervie O’Brien, objec who tendered without , (quoting Cuddy at 297 expert tion as an in the field forensic 124). psychiatry, expert report ad The District found that Hall- mitted the court. Dr. testified Court also O’Brien agents’] trap,” per into A. [the ford “fell “was an individual who agents “effectively snook- help ceived that the Secret Service gun pos- into an of admission er[ed] [him] get Obviously him of hospital. out the he Columbia, after the District of session day wanted to leave the next A. himself.” .satisfying that no themselves he was Dr. O’Brien also that Hall testified anyone protected by threat the U.S. significantly being ford vulnerable to “was any A. Secret of its Service employees,” thinking speaking seduced with him into 692. The District that Court concluded out,” they particularly that his were ticket questions possibly the “calculated light recurrently of “the and consistent self-incriminating result in a admission ly psychiatric symptoms he documented gun ownership about the whereabouts exhibiting, physically was debilitated guns.” of those A.'688. yet state and the tfiat he had not been fact

Agent agents Fox that testified appropriate psychiatric afforded treat they speak asked if could to him Hallford Nothing ment.” A. in the 482-83. record ’ about, he made while at the statement? disputes Dr. The O’Brien’s conclusion. agents planned questioning GW. The their government object did not to Dr."O’Brien’s around use of a standard form that testimony proffered, it was nor the time information of touched interest .on challenge the Government does whether agents, including weapon ownership. As a possessed this is no Hallford belief. There result, interview, near the end of the in the that evidence record did if any he asked Hallford owned dispel anything such belief. Given the weapons. agents’, The on a reliance stan- whole, evidence as a of the lack they form suggests dard that knew in ad- Government, challenge by the I cannot ask questions vance that of finding conclude that the District Court’s than, topics about other state- clearly is erroneous. ments made at GW. Accordingly, is to support Despite substantial my conclusion that of the three finding that findings District Court’s clearly District Court’s used deception questioning , erroneous, agree Hallford. I with Court that voluntary. statements were

Additionally, the District' Court also voluntary a confession is Whether question found was “no there- legal we review de novo. United anything dispel any never Reed, 354, (D.C.Cir. States v. 522 358 F.3d on part [Hallford’s] the inter belief 2008). prove The Government must view was if required, and he was voluntary by Hallford’s confession was going hospital, leave would need of preponderance Lego the evidence. v. blessing.” majority their A. 690. ap 477, 489, S.Ct. 619, Twomey, 404 92 pears U.S. reject this implicitly finding by (1972). Although 30 this is a dismissing import, relying its on Dis L.Ed.2d 618 close, case, trict equivocation Court’s about I Government has believe whether actually possessed this done so belief. here.

863 Pate, 433, 442, 1541, “A is inadmissible as a confession matter 367 U.S. totality process (1961)). Thus, due under the of the L.Ed.2d 948 we must con it involuntarily circumstances was ob sider “both the ac characteristics Reed, 522 F.3d at tained....” 358-59 interrogation.” cused and the details Bradshaw, (quoting 935 Dickerson, 434, 530 U.S. 120 S.Ct. 2326 295, (D.C.Cir.1991)). “Voluntari Schneckloth, (quoting 412 U.S. at ness turns whether the ‘defendant’s will 2041). S.Ct. factors include “the Relevant gave overborne’ when his state education, age defendant’s length ment, and for this the test is whether the detention, defendant ‘product essentially statement was a of-an rights, advised of his nature of free and choice unconstrained its mak Murdock, questioning.” 667 F.3d at 1305- ” Murdock, er.’ States v. United Schneckloth, (citing U.S. at (D.C.Cir.2012) (quoting 2041). S.Ct. Bustamonte, Schneckloth v. (1973); 36 L.Ed.2d 854 S.Ct. precedent review our prevents me Connecticut, Culombe v. from concluding that Hallford’s statements 1860, (1961)). 81 6 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1037 involuntary. suggested Wé have defendant’s mental condition is a relevant “egregious facts necessary to [are] determining factor in whether á confession establish that the statements ... made voluntary, was “this fact justi but does not during questioning [are], involuntary.” fy a conclusion that a defendant’s mental Mohammed, 693 F.3d condition, by apart itself and from its rela 192, (D.C.Cir.2012). 198 Statements made coercion,- tion to official- should ever dis where circumstances are less than pose of into inquiry ‘vol constitutional “egregious” usually voluntary. are For Connelly, untariness.’” Colorado v. 479 Reed, example, in United States v. we U.S, 157, 164, 515, 107 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d voluntary a confession found where (1986). Accordingly, police 473 “coercive suffering with claimed defendant activity necessary predicate is a symptoms drawal at time the inter finding that is a confession not ‘volun rogation police placed and the the defen 167, 107 tary.’” Id. at S.Ct. 515. Coercive without, jumpsuit dant in a underwear. activity “trickery, -psychological includes 354, (D.C.Cir.2008). 358-59 pressure, or mistreatment.” Withrow v. Likewise, a Miranda vol we waiver found Williams, 680, 708, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. Yunis, untary States v. where in.United 1745, 123 (1993) (O’Connor, J., L.Ed.2d 407 questioned the defendant peri over a concurring part dissenting part). days, four od from seasickness suffered Furthermore, warnings whether -Miranda room,” in a cramped “hot and detention given a factor is relevant but “does (cid:127) any familiarity lacked with his Mi ... dispense with the voluntariness rights being prior randa informed and States, inquiry.” Dickerson v. United 530 signing a written waiver. 859 F.2d 953 428, 444, 2326, 120 U.S. S.Ct. 147 L.Ed.2d (D.C.Cir.1988). Berghuis Thomp In v. (2000). 405 “Determination whether a kins, Supreme Court noted that involuntary ‘requires statement is more coercive”, nothing “inherently about an color-matching than a mere of cases.’ It interrogation that lasts hours three while requires careful evaluation of all cir straight-backed sits chair to cumstances of defendant interrogation.” Mincey Arizona, 385, 401, given v. render involuntary 437 98 statements sub U.S. S.Ct. 2408, (1978) (quoting sequent warning. L.Ed.2d Reck to a Miranda 560 U.S. Certainly, of this case

370, 387, the circumstances 176 L.Ed.2d 130 S.Ct. although give pause, the voluntari me (2010). “more than a mere ness determination is Supreme Court has Similarly, where the cases,” Mincey, 437 color-matching of U.S. involuntary, the circum found statements Reck, (citing at 98 S.Ct. 2408 surrounding interrogation have stances 1541), precedent must 81 S.Ct. In much worse than those here. been guide decision-making. our nonetheless Arizona, was suf the defendant Mincey Hallford, problem This is because pain gunshot from a fering “unbearable” notably absent from his brief are cases of a speak because unable wound while involuntary courts found statements where mouth; pro in his he also could not tube sufficiently analogous facts. under While questions, answers to and he vide coherent against weigh here circumstances some lawyer repeatedly for a over the asked claim government’s that Hallford’s state interrogation. aof four-hour course voluntary, none evoke the kind ments were 396-401, 2408. In Black U.S. at governmental egregious conduct Alabama, burn v. the defendant endured prior coercion that has led courts find eight-to interrogation nine-hour involuntary. statements police small room surrounded three rights, not inform of his incompetent officers and insane “was but this failure is not outcome determina allegedly confessed.” 361 the time Dickerson, tive. 530.U.S. at See S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Although S.Ct. misled (1960). Hallford’s circumstances do scope question of their about the Mincey not come close to those ing, misrepresentation their Although Blackburn. Hallford was suffer may type promise leniency of false of illness, ing interroga he was mental involuntary. See Mur render statements company doctors ted and nurses. dock, F.3d at Colorado 667 But 1307. cf. hour, His less than an and interview lasted 564, 576-77, 8,n. Spring, 479 U.S. v. agents spoke to Hallford'in conversa (re (1987) 851, 93 107 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d appeared tional calm and tones. affir serving question of whether an signs exhibited no or emotional scope about the misrepresentation mative provided answers' responsive distress. He interrogation render a Mi would ágents’ questions. And the coercive involuntary). randa The manner waiver suggest conduct here does that" brought ques in which to be injured [Hallford] “threated or dur disconcerting—the hospital is also tioned ing interrogation that he was in acting agents, staff the will of the were at 386, Berghuis, 560 way fearful.” at there is no evidence that the staff asked “Indeed, in 130 S.Ct. 2250. even where agents, Hallford if he to meet the wished greater terrogations duration were held suffering and Hallford was from mental they accompanied to improper, illness, “by illness—but his mental itself coercion, by indicating ... facts such other apart from its to official coer relation suspect, incapacitated as an and sedated his cion” determine whether does sleep deprivation, voluntary. and food and threats.” Connelly, statements were 2250. Id. at While such U.S. at 107 S.Ct. 515. And while necessary may may circumstances not be to Hallford have believed that violation, process find a there no arrived to about his who him due are help sufficiently prior statements be able to analogous pres circumstances only he secure his release would talk ent here. them, is no the record belief, only, America,

that the caused this that UNITED Appelle STATES they it. benefited from e v.

Finally, tellingly, most when MITCHELL, Appellant. Sherman asked if could search Hall- records, ford’s car review medical 14-3039, Nos. 14-3040. goyernment As the ar Hallford declined. gues, Hallford’s consent refusal United States of Appeals, Court any suggestion these searches undermines District of Columbia Circuit. that his will was “overborne” the time spoke agents. with the See United Argued Dec. 2015. 1060, 1064 Cooper, States v. 499 F.2d & n. March Decided (D.C.Cir.1974) (concluding statements voluntary, part, because defen rights by of his dant “exercised some re

fusing sign [a waiver]

indicating might decline to answer questions”);

some see also United States (4th Khan, Cir.2006) 461 F.3d

(statements voluntary, part; because “freely ques

defendant some answered answer, others);

tions and declined Graham, (8th (evidence Cir.1992) “not reflective defendant,

of an will” overborne when' search,

during a ques “answered some

tions” “dodged questions but about her

identity” request officers’ “refused Yunis,

search her luggage”); cf. (noting that courts “look to a de

fendant’s behavior determine the extent determining

of his distress” when voluntary).

statements are the to Under circumstances,

tality light of the and in precedent, I

this conclude that the Gov prové

ernment has itsmet burden to voluntary by

Hallford’s statements

preponderance of the evidence.

However, given majority’s conclu- findings

sion that the District Court’s erroneous,

clearly agree I that we should remaining

remand the

back the District Court.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Joseph Hallford

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Mar 4, 2016

Citation: 816 F.3d 850

Docket Number: 15-3003

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.