U.S. v. Lafferty

• Citation: 387 F.Supp.2d 500
• Decision Date: 21 September 2005
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 04-07-02J.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Amy L. LAFFERTY, a/k/a Amy L. Lowery, Defendant.
• Court: United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania

387 F.Supp.2d 500

UNITED STATES of America, v. Amy L. LAFFERTY, a/k/a Amy L. Lowery, Defendant.

Criminal No. 04-07-02J.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

September 21, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John J. Valkovci, Jr., Johnstown, PA, for United States of America.

Marketa Sims, Federal Public Defender's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT

GIBSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Government's Motion to Reconsider (Document No. 71).

The Government challenges the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court of June 6, 2005 (Document No. 67) which can be found at United States v. Lafferty, 372 F.Supp.2d 446 (W.D.Pa.2005)(hereinafter "Lafferty I") concerning the analysis and conclusions as to only the Sixth Amendment issues therein. For a rendering of the operative findings of fact, the reader is referred to Lafferty I.

In the present motion, the Government first argues that the statements of Co-Defendant, David Mitchell (hereinafter "Mitchell"), the co-defendant, and the Defendant which were made during the "second" police interview of January 15, 2003 of these two individuals should be classified as a joint statement, which would be equally admissible against the Defendant as it would have been against Mitchell had he proceeded to trial in this matter.¹ The Government notes that in paragraphs 33 through 45 of the Findings of Fact in Lafferty I, the Court refers to the Defendant and Mitchell several times using plural pronouns and conjunctive words but analyzed all of the statements of January 15, 2003 by both the Defendant and Mitchell separately, not jointly, thus "creat[ing] an internal tension within the Court's Opinion." Government's Motion, p. 4, n. 3. The Government offers that by the fact the Defendant and Mitchell were interviewed together, they "presented themselves to the officers as a single, combined unit, not as two separate individuals." Government's Motion, p. 5. The Government goes on to support its argument noting that the Defendant and Mitchell were engaged in a "boyfriend/girlfriend relationship" at the time, they "were advised of their rights together as a unit" and sat "side-by-side and both were interviewed by the same officers, at the same time, about the same criminal episode." Government's Motion, pp. 5-6. Finally, the Government also highlights the fact that both answered questions: "Lafferty further participated in the interview by correcting or explaining answers given by Mitchell, and by nodding her head affirmatively when Mitchell gave other answers." Government's Motion, p. 6.

In suggesting a possible framework for reviewing these facts in the case sub judice, the Government offers a seven point analysis to determine if the Defendant's actions are to be considered "joint" with the actions of Mitchell:

a) did the defendants share some common interest or liability relative to the interview b) did the defendants or the officers request that the defendants be interviewed together;

c) did the defendants present themselves as a single unit or as separate individuals;

d) were the defendants Mirandized together;

e) were the defendants interviewed at the same time and place and by the same officer;

f) were the questions posed to the defendants together or were the defendants addressed individually; and

g) did both defendants participate in the interview and the nature and extent of the participation.

Government's Motion, p. 5, n. 4.

Beyond being a joint statement, the Government also argues that this joint statement should be admissible against the Defendant or Mitchell pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (hereinafter "F.R.E.")801(d)(2)(A). Government's Motion, p. 7. The Government cites the case of Glock v. Dugger, 752 F.Supp. 1027 (M.D.Fl.1990) in support of this proposition.

The Court denies the Government's motion on each of these arguments. The Court will not enter into a new and separate analysis using the seven factors for determining if a statement is "joint" as proposed by the Government. Clearly, if the statements of Mitchell and Defendant made in the "second" interview on January 15, 2003 were considered a unified, joint statement/joint confession, the Government would not have to contend with producing Mitchell for live testimony in order to satisfy the Sixth Amendment because Mitchell's statements would also be considered the Defendant's statements, which could be introduced against her at trial under F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A). See infra, p. 12. However, the Court does not view the statements made at the "second" interview of January 15, 2003 to be a joint statement/joint confession of the Defendant and Mitchell.

The Court has previously found that the statements of Mitchell were adoptive statements of the Defendant as it was skeptical of the existence of a "joint confession" or a "joint statement." Thus, the Court did not explicitly rule as to the existence of a joint confession/joint statement in its Conclusions of Law in Lafferty I:

36. As to the Government's characterization of the statements given by Mitchell and the Defendant, the Court notes that there is very little guidance in the law regarding "joint confessions," specifically the definition thereof, and also notes that those "joint confessions" revealed by the Court's research almost exclusively concern confessions made by two or more individuals that are documented in writing. See e.g., Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); U.S. ex rel. Kern v. Maroney, 275 F.Supp. 435 (W.D.Pa.1967).

37. However, because the Defendant had properly waived her Miranda rights by partaking in the second interview of January 15, 2003, the Defendant's silence and failure to deny statements made by Mitchell during the second interview make the statements made by Mitchell adoptive admissions by the Defendant pursuant to F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(B) as an innocent defendant would have responded in order to deny the statements made rather than acquiescing in such statements by remaining silent after hearing and understanding those statements. See U.S. v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371 (4th Cir.2001). Cf. U.S. v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599, 600 (4th Cir.1974).⁴

38. In conclusion, Mitchell's statements at the second interview of January 15, 2003, which have been found to be adoptive admissions of Defendant, are not precluded from admission at trial under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; however, the issue of the admissibility of those statements under the Sixth Amendment will be addressed.

39. The statements (as distinguished from her adoptive admissions) made by the Defendant are in and of themselves her admissions and may be admitted against her at trial in this matter.

⁴ The Court takes note of the fact that the Defendant and Mitchell had two private discussions prior to beginning the second interview of January 15, 2003 and the substance of these discussions are unknown; if it could be proven that coercion by Mitchell as influenced by law enforcement or law enforcement coercion directly played any role in the Defendant's partaking in the second interview, such coercion could possibly destroy the admissibility of the adoptive admissions of the Defendant. There is nothing present in the record to suggest such coercion in the case sub judice and therefore, the Court has not addressed it.

Lafferty I, 372 F.Supp.2d 446, 459-460 (W.D.Pa.2005).

The Court finds, as a conclusion of law, that the statements made by Mitchell and Defendant in the second interview of January 15, 2003, do not constitute a "joint statement" or a "joint confession." The Court reaches this conclusion based upon the logic that a statement of any kind from a party, which would include a confession from a criminal defendant, is one made by the party herself.² In order for a statement to be considered a joint statement, thus indicating that more than one person or entity is making the same statement together, without disagreement as to its content, meaning and purpose, the makers of the joint statement must manifest their intent to make such statement their own, as a collective, without dissent.

As mentioned in the Court's previous opinion, the Court's research revealed only three cases even mentioning the idea of a joint statement or a joint confession, all of which were captured in written form. The Court finds that joint statements or joint confessions are most easily found in a written medium where the statement makers can manifest their intent, as a collective, to make a statement by signing a written memorialization of the statement. That is not to say that the Court could not find a statement to be a joint statement or a joint confession if it was made in oral form, but the Court believes that an agreement concerning the contents of the entire statement by the makers of the statement would need to be clearly manifested as well.

Considering the factors offered by the Government, the Court finds most of them to be without any true bearing upon the issue of whether a statement is to be considered a joint statement. The Court can envision a situation where co-defendants request to be present in the same room, are Mirandized together, charged with the same crimes from the same alleged criminal event, have an alleged "criminal" relationship in addition to an intimate or familial relationship, are asked questions by the same law enforcement officers at the same time with both participating in the answering of questions, but all of these circumstances still not resulting in a joint statement. For example, circumstances could exist where two co-defendants request to be interviewed at the same time, in the same room, by the same law enforcement officers concerning the same alleged criminal event that both co-defendants are charged with having committed. Both defendants have waived their Fifth...