Wilson v. United States
444 A.2d 25
D.C.
1982
Check Treatment

*2 KELLY, PRYOR, Before MACK and As- Judges. sociate MACK, Judge: Associate appeal This is an from a conviction of accessory felony after the fact to murder 22-106). (kidnapping) (D.C.Code § inculpatory appellant The contends that sup- statement he made should have been the two detectives who pressed because Arlington County transported him from the processing Jail and then District for 1) Superior neither to the Court honored (Miranda) right Fifth Amendment to re- 2) main silent Amendment nor Sixth statement, par- right to counsel. This “[in] ],” later formed the basis of the ticular[ stipulated conviction after a tri- appellant’s agree We Appellee al. Brief for at 7.1 appellant with the that the detectives failed remain “scrupulously honor” his silent and reverse. Myer, appellant

The was arrested at Fort July m. Virginia about 9:30 a. on policeman, The by military policeman. was to transfer responsibility whose sole authorities, ap- read appellant public pellant’s rights to him and did appellant sign He did not ask the him. Miranda waiver card. spent night at the appellant morning, Jail. The next

Arlington County 11:00, approximately two District Homi- Detectives, ar- Chaney, cide Aduddell and him back to the District. transport rived hearing suppress, on the motion to At the that he recited Detective Aduddell testified rights to him while appellant’s Miranda C., Sansing, John W. D. Washington, appellant said Arlington testified, how- appellant. them.2 He also understood stipulated appellant’s hearing, 1. The trial was the two other officers testified 2. At the arising they appellant previously, second trial It is a out of the same occurrence. had arrested the that on March 4, 1978; April ruling by judge in the first trial 1978and denying suppress un- both occasions he was read his motion to cards, signed challenging. once which he is them and waiver derstood ever, that, questioned, when After the Detec- processed, said tell,” he had “nothing to other than to tives car Chaney Aduddell and took him “den[y] present at the time of the [sic] to the eellblock. Detective Superior Court offense.” The detective also testified that pulling Aduddell testified as he was the appellant was “curious” toas how into the entrance of the court the *3 had gotten his name they and that told the stop again inquired asked him to about appellant that a alleged witness to the of- It implicated the evidence that had him. fense had implicating made a statement point was at that that the detectives told Further, him. Detective testified Aduddell him the name of the witness —a friend he, that Detective Chaney appellant and the murder, Linda witness to the continued to discuss the during case their Baldwin. Detective Aduddell described the drive back to the District. “flabbergasted. reaction as He When the appellant detectives and the Thereafter, couldn’t believe it.” the detec- at Office, arrived the District’s Homicide tives appellant couple and the talked for “a again officers verbally advised during minutes” which the detectives lant rights. of his Detective Aduddell testi- told him that it would be in his interest fied appellant that did not waive his make a truthful statement.3 He then rights and that he and Detective Chaney agreed give a statement which was exe- continued to discuss the case and the evi- cuted between 12:30 2:30 after- that against dence appellant with him and to noon. respond to his questions. He also testified that he and Detective Chaney had earlier possible discussed the efficacy of providing I. the appellant with increasingly specif- more analysis Fifth Amendment Our be ic information regarding alleged of- gins with Miranda v. 384 U.S. cross-examination,

fense. On Detective (1966). 694 The S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Aduddell continued: police there that a suspect held Q. And your prior discussion with De- custody must be that he informed has tective Chaney about whether or not to silent; right anything to remain that further, talk to him discussions, in those says against can and will be used him in was there any might indications of what court; right that he has the to consult with your purpose in revealing such infor- presence during and to the of counsel inter mation? that, rogation indigent, if he is a law A. We felt if we were specific, more yer appointed will be him. represent perhaps Mr. Wilson would decide to warnings pro The familiar Miranda are change his mind give us a statement. phylactic safeguard assuring at a no least Q. You were working in effect on Mr. rights. tice of these Wilson, to abandon the —to induce Mr. Wilson to abandon position the —his here, however, is not wheth- the exercise rights? appellant er the was advised of his A. I don’t like the but I’ll terminology, but, rather, whether he had invoked his say yes. and, so, whether right to remain silent if Q. It was a strategy, deliberate was it “scrupulously the detectives failed to hon- not? or,” Michigan Mosley, 423 U.S. A. It that say would 46 L.Ed.2d 313 was deliberate that he continuing “interrogate” initiated the of us. him. If we waiving retaining promise all his other time was a “calculated inducement” questions. not to answer convince him to make a statement. The detec- noted, however, appellant tive that it was the 3. Detective Addudell also testified that earlier possible who initiated the discussion of the they their discussion had told the pretrial conditions of his release. help that if he a statement would him get personal recognizance released on

find that concluded, detectives hon- police “where a practice is de- ored that right we must then look to wheth- signed to elicit an incriminating response er “intentionally accused, relin- from the unlikely it is quish[ed] or to re- practice will not also be one which the abandon[ed]” main silent. Zerbst, Johnson v. police 304 U.S. should have known reasonably 458, 464, 1019, 1023, 58 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 1461 likely to have that effect.” Id. at 301-02 (1938); Alexander, n.7, United States D.C. 100 S.Ct. at 1690 n.7. App., n.19, 428 A.2d (1981). 48-49 52 n.27 While the Court in Innis failed to hold

The trial court found in- that an interrogation had taken place, it did voked his right to remain both that, so on the given basis the circumstanc- Arlington when he said he “nothing had es surrounding respondent’s state- tell” and later ments,6 the Homicide Office. should not have known Finding that conclusion to sup- have been would be moved to make *4 ported by evidence, substantial we affirm incriminatory 302-03, an response. Id. at it. 1973, D.C.Code 17-305(a). § at 1690-91. the Such was not case here as Detective Aduddell testified “Once warnings have been given, the sub- regarding Chaney’s his and Detective sequent procedure is clear. If the individu- agreed-upon plan intent to comment so al manner, indicates any in any at time exactly as to elicit type incriminating the of prior to or during questioning, that he statement appellant eventually which the wishes to remain the interrogation made. must cease.” Miranda v. supra 384 473-74, at U.S. 86 S.Ct. at 1627. The next adopted This court the Innis test in Unit- address, we therefore, must Alexander, ed supra, States v. a case not whether the detectives’ continuing discus- there, too, unlike this one in that a detec- sions with appellant the after his tive, invocation after Alexander had asserted her of to remain silent counsel, amounted to made statements to her and used “interrogation.” We they hold that which, admitted, did un- “techniques” he later were der the teachings Innis, of Rhode Island v. designed to inculpating elicit statements. 291, 300-02, U.S. 100 S.Ct. 1689- Id. at 51. There we held that the detec- 90, 64 L.Ed.2d (1980).4 “conclusively tive’s admission demon- that he “scrupulously did not strat[ed]” At the suppression hearing, Detective suspect’s right honor” the not to interro- Aduddell admitted that his and Detective gated and judge’s, ruling reversed the trial Chaney’s engaging intent in appellant the that she interrogated was not within the in conversation was to induce his statement. Accord, meaning of Miranda. Robertson v. While this alone dispositive is not under States, United D.C.App., 429 A.2d 192 Innis,5 the Court there did stress that the (1981). definition of interrogation extends to words or part actions on the police of officers that finding While our here that the detec- they should have known were reasonably tives interrogate appellant continued to the likely to elicit an incriminating response. after he invoked his to remain silent such, As the police intent of the goes Innis they far toward a conclusion that did irrelevant”; fact, was “not . .. the Court “scrupulously not honor” 4. The trial court noted that the discussions at 6.The described the conversation be- “lengthy interrogations” issue were not police apparently provoked but did tween the which specify not whether the “consisting] discussions constituted Innis’ statement as of no more ” “interrogation” in the first instance. than a few offhand remarks .... Id. at 100 S.Ct. at 1691. In United States v. Alexan- der, supra at determining The Court we that same stated that the test for described con- police versation interrogated whether the as “a casual have remark from one officer presence is not perceptions primarily the intent of another of the defendant but suspect. Id. 446 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at 1689. repeatedly we look to the While the here was nonetheless must Michigan Mosley, acknowledged strictures of his under supra, advised and determine, standing rights rights of his Miranda those ultimately, whether were, nonetheless, scrupulously lant’s Fifth not honored Amendment were violat- ed. under the second and third factors which Here, guidelines. set the detec Mosley as met, outset, We are with the trial immediately questioning not cease tives did court’s finding no Fifth or Amend- Sixth Instead, persistently the appellant. they ment violations did detectives consistently interrogated intending him not the appellant’s overbear will nor im- Also, incriminatory to elicit statements. statement, but, rather, properly induce his government satisfy Mosley’s failed to voluntarily a state- engaged third The same detectives prong. and, fact, ment initiated the conversation regarding in conversation himself.7 In reviewing court’s denial four virtually throughout same crimes their motion to suppress may we not disturb its together, apparently hours break long factual so findings sup- as are during pro occurring processing the routine ported by substantial evidence. D.C.Code which, recognized, as we have can cedure 17-305(a). the facts On of this § equivalent ‘inter also be the “functional case, conclude, law, we as a matter of ” Alexander, rogation.’ United States the appellant’s rights were supra Lastly, at 51. although scenes and, Miranda, such, honored supra, and change, did those interrogations Mosley, supra, require the exclusion of his *5 changes did not ease the coer potentially statement. cive atmosphere surrounding interroga In Mosley, the Court noted the factors Rather, tions. in locations became which are to be determining considered in creasingly ap more coercive such that whether a suspect’s right ques- cut to off pellant was at the court house door before tioning has been scrupulously honored. make a decided to statement. There They 1) are: was advised fore, given provide the detectives’ failure to rights them; and did he orally acknowledge safe Mosley with sufficient 2) did the police ques- immediately cease guards, we that his were not find tioning and attempts make no to or resume by detectives. “scrupulously honored” those reconsider; ask to 3) him a was there two States, Cf. Calaway D.C.App., v. United 408 hour break between the. first and second (1979) speak (suspect A.2d 1220 continued to interrogations and per- was the second by despite warnings police); consistent at formed a different location a differ- States, Peoples v. 395 D.C.App., United ent officer 4) about a different crime and denied, 911, (1978), 442 99 A.2d 41 cert. U.S. were warnings Miranda given before the 2826, (1979) (suspect 277 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d questioning second session. The Court signed previ after a confession six hours Mosley answered all these questions in the ous after he been interrogation and had affirmative vacated Michigan who, judicial along officer taken before a of Appeals’ statement, respondent’s reversal with the detective who took the conviction. warnings). Miranda him fresh government, statement, appeal, argued finding attempts tory The there our their ap- interrogation was no constitutional defect here since the to an and our conclu- amounted sion that the detectives failed pellant initiated the relevant While to discussion. appellant’s record is unclear as to whether the honor the it Fifth Amendment “curiosity” piqued initially lant’s was re- to hold that the would be inconsistent for us having sult of the insistently detectives him independently told about the initiat- alleged ed, existence of an crime guided unnamed witness to the the discussions. Cf. nurtured and having or detectives told him of the U.S. 101 S.Ct. Edwards 451 ques- appellant's witness was a result tioning, subject- (1981)(petitioner 68 L.Ed.2d 378 light it is not In crucial here. interrogation ed the instance of ultimately detectives’ deliberate and successful counsel). right invoking after attempts appellant’s to induce the incrimina-

30 find,

Since we consequence so we also of interrogation conclude that or the the appellant’s statement did not amount to equivalent thereof.

an intentional relinquishment or abandon- ment of a known right privilege or I Fifth Amendment purposes and that Appellant, a member of the armed forces should have been suppressed. United stationed at Fort Myer, Virginia, was the Alexander, States v. supra at 52. subject of an arrest warrant issued in this jurisdiction. by military He was arrested II. policeman, warned remain right The trial court also ruled that counsel, silent and to consult transfer- right Sixth Amendment to have to the custody Arlington County red counsel present during interrogation was police authorities. The latter also advised not abridged. agree. We The appellant him of questions. not to answer had not been formally charged, indicted or day, next two detectives the Met- from arraigned at the time of his incriminatory ropolitan Department Police arrived at the Hence, statement. under our recent deci Jail; Arlington County they apprised appel- sion States, in Hill v. United D.C.App.,434 lant of the nature of the charges against A.2d 422 in which we held that the him repeated warnings. the Miranda Sixth Amendment “applies counsel Appellant indicated that he would make no post-indictment confrontations be statement but “was curious as to how [the tween the government agents,” accused and police] got his name for the arrest.” This the appellant’s right yet to counsel had not inquiry generally. was answered In the attached. Id. at citing Massiah v. hours, appellant course of the next few States, United 84 U.S. S.Ct. transported District’s Homicide Of- (1964).8 L.Ed.2d 246 also Brewer v. See fice, again rights, photo- advised of his Williams, 387, 398-99, U.S. graphed prepared for court. En route 1232, 1239-40, (1977), (the 51 L.Ed.2d 424 Court, Superior to the us appellant “asked Sixth Amendment to counsel had at again implicated about the evidence that in a tached case in which an arrest warrant *6 ” him in the previous murder. . . . Whereas had issued and the defendant had been ar witness, reference an had been to unnamed raigned and jail court). confined to aby the officers then disclosed the name of a We therefore affirm the trial court’s find witness, mind, particular having in ing in this respect. might subject information cause the to In view of our conclusion that the state- change give his mind and a statement. ment introduced into evidence was obtained Upon hearing person the name of the in Amendment, violation of the Fifth him, implicated who indicated judgment appealed from is that he wished to state his version of Reversed. returning incident. After to head- any state- quarters, being apprised that PRYOR, Judge, dissenting: Associate him, against ment could be used requires This case again, us to consider gave a written statement which was used pursuant to Miranda v. 384 U.S. against him at trial. 436, 1602, 16 86 (1966), S.Ct. 694 L.Ed.2d

balance right against between the self-in II crimination and interest in law society’s specific question enforcement. The in this when a premise We start with the statement, instance is whether appellant’s right a crime asserts the to re- suspect to silent, initially electing after to remain scrupu- was main that decision must be question 8. The admits that address the whether he was denied he at no time dur- ing interrogation requested his custodial his Fifth Amendment counsel. to Hence, assistance of counsel. we need not

31 lously information, honored and such a without ested in commu- person, such even if more, be may interrogated against not nication of such information followed will. A brief summary Supreme closely “right on assertion of to an Court’s helpful. decisions this regard silence.” Where the individual has not requested counsel and has chosen instead In Michigan Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 to make decisions regarding his own S.Ct. 46 L.Ed.2d (1975), Mosley, 313 a authorities, with the he conversations robbery was suspect, arrested and warned deprived temporarily should not even be silent; to remain he chose not of the relevant the deci- information questions. later, answer hours Some a n.l; n.l, sion. 329 at 109 96 S.Ct. at [Id homicide detective learned that he was in (White, J., concurring).] custody sought him about an murder. being unrelated After advised Williams, In Brewer v. 97 U.S. rights by detective, the second Mosley (1977), Williams, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 S.Ct. acknowledged he but understood none- girl, a in the of a was young death a theless statement. custody Davenport, taken into Iowa. Af- ap- ter receiving warnings, the Miranda In upholding prosecution’s use of the by was counsel peared court and advised trial, statement at the Court observed that By to remain with the arrangement silent. a suspect’s initial decision not to answer it was would be police, agreed Williams not does create a se per proscrip- transported by automobile to Des Moines tion against all further questioning. The interrogated but would not the es- decision not answer questions must be corting During officers. the two and one- honored but that circumstance ride, officers, half hour of the a Detec- one may change: might wish to ly, know —if it were he may have indicated a want lar incriminating fact true —that result in his immediate release. Similar- alibi for swer questions, he would nonetheless Although [*] to know immediately [*] his ability particular recently arrested individual [*] time [*] desire explain particu- or to supply period —if [*] it were to an- would [*] grounds. plicit conviction because liams tian burial tive ner that has In deciding girl. Learning, spoke to counsel rather directed ruling that speech.” been the officers to the case, described At a Williams in man- was than on Miranda violation later as the “Chris- reversing point, was ex- body a of the Wil- (1) 291, 100 Innis, true —that the case against him was In Rhode Island U.S. strong (2) unusually his immedi- 64 L.Ed.2d Innis ate cooperation early morning with the authorities hour in arrested at an *7 the apprehension and conviction of others in with the streets of Providence connection or in recovery the of of a Af property shotgun would re- the death taxicab driver. dound to his being rights by benefit in form of three the a ter warned charge. rank, reduced Certainly ascending the of he was individu- different officers al’s lawyer, one, if he had would be inter- in vehicle. the vehi- placed transport a As way you going right past give something 1. I want we will be the area on the to think about traveling Moines, stop while we’re the road. I down ... into Des feel that we could one, you body, Number I parents want the to observe weath that the this little locate the conditions, raining, sleeting, er girl it’s it’s it’s be to a burial for should entitled Christian treacherous, freezing, driving very visibility away is girl from the little who was snatched poor, early going evening. is it’s to be dark this And I them on Christmas and murdered. [E]ve They predicting are way several inches of snow stop for in feel we and locate it on the should tonight, you yourself I feel waiting trying that are the morning until rather than only person girl’s that possibly knows where this little a snow storm and come back out after is, body you yourself 392-93, been have there being not find at all. able to [Id. once, you get top you and if a snow on of it 97 S.Ct. at 1236-37]. yourself And, may be unable it. to find since station, cle or of an police tioning impermissible equivalent was driven to the there was conversation the three among just offi- In the interrogation. light of decisions cers —within hearing suspect reviewed, the argument by appel- the advanced —to effect shotgun that an abandoned would pause. Essentially, appel- lant causes me to pose a considerable threat to school chil- police lant contends that because the an- dren.2 Innis interrupted, and directed the appellant’s piecemeal, in a questions swered officers to weapon. manner, specific hope with the increasingly induce a state- approach this would Applying previously declared stan- him, was the ment from that such conduct dards, suspect held that the had interrogation.” equivalent “functional interrogated been the state- ments against were admissible evidence lengthy an emotional and state- Certainly him. custody, in suspect ment directed to Williams, supra, rightly Brewer v. can Finally, Edwards v. 451 U.S. which is viola- “interrogation” reviewed as L.Ed.2d 378 expressed right tive of the of the accused Edwards was robbery arrested for a culmi- Similarly, remain silent. initiation nating being a death. After warned of of an arrestee who has questioning insistent of a possibility discussed improper. questions, declined to answer ultimately “deal” but that he want- decided Edwards, supra. Significantly, See a lawyer accomplish ed this for him. The ended; among respecting officers cross-talk conversation morning but the next missing weapon clearly in Innis bore the required Edwards was told that he was hope would reconsid- police see two other officers who had come to respond silent and er his decision to be jail especially to see him. After a new factor, way. Notwithstanding this some warning, taped Miranda of an statement police the Court did not hold the statements accomplice implicating Edwards was equivalent interroga- to be the functional it, played. Upon hearing Edwards made a tion. statement but declined to have it recorded.

The statement was at trial. used case must Appellant’s argument in this that, numerous conviction, having

In mean after had reversing the it was held that, to remain warnings under about presented, circumstances failure of the to answer the accused had not waived his in an immediate and ex- counsel and lant’s therefore should not have been fashion, was, itself, imper- questioned haustive police. second time interrogation.3 missible form of case, Returning to this the critical in- think, view, I quiry, is whether state- In has not shown my ment consequence ques- “interrogated” was the of direct in this instance or he was detective, given the same who had earlier One of the officers testified: stated, hap- warnings, what Miranda “we know point, talking At this I was back and forth you responsible pened” or “we know are stating with Patrolman McKenna that I fre- later, stabbing.” quent Still the officer advised patrol this area while [that the arrestee that he would need certain routine handicapped because a school for children is nearby,] in order to transfer her to handicapped information from her located children there’s a lot of She, area, jail. thereupon, running warn- the ings, began without further around in this and God might weapon forbid one of them find a with to relate her version of the events *8 they might shells hurt themselves. had occurred. [Id. which 294-95, 1686-87], 100 S.Ct. at Concluding proffered statement was inadmissible, emphasized we Appellant understandably places 3. some re- counsel, to consult with had asserted liance on our decision in United States v. Alex- initiated a but that the officer had nonetheless ander, D.C.App., (1981). 428 A.2d 42 There a and, any without further discussion of the case investigation in a homicide who was incriminating warnings, state- new obtained advised of her that she did not indicated view, my per- analysis, is not ment. That having wish to answer without first suasive, this case. under the circumstances of later, lawyer. advice A few minutes coerced into giving a statement.4 The Supreme hold- Court and this court have previ- ing which he would, think, seeks I be tanta- ously rejected.

mount per to a se rule which both the I Accordingly, dissent. judge specifically voluntarily giving The trial waive his in ... found that freely lant “was able to and fact did in statement.”