Arnett v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 05 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 83-2157-PHX-SMM.,CV 83-2157-PHX-SMM. |
| Parties | James Alan ARNETT, Petitioner, v. Samuel LEWIS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lynn Marie Anderson, Hadley, Poach & Harraway, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, John Trebon, Flagstaff, AZ, for petitioner.
Diane M. Ramsey, Atty. Gen's Office, Crim. Div., Crane McClennen, Ariz. Atty. Gen's Office, Crim. Appeals Section, Phoenix, AZ, for respondents.
James Alan Arnett (hereinafter "Petitioner") commenced this federal habeas proceeding in November, 1983, and subsequently raised additional allegations of constitutional error in an amended petition filed on November 28, 1989. The Court previously determined the merits and/or procedural status of all but one of Petitioner's claims. See Arnett v. Ricketts, 665 F.Supp. 1437 (D.Ariz.1987) file doc. no. 80; Order of 4/1/94 file doc. no. 174.
In his remaining claim Petitioner alleges that he provided a confession only after his will was overborne due to coercive police conduct, the conditions of his confinement in the Richmond City Jail in Richmond, California, and the inordinate delay he experienced before being brought before a judicial officer. The Court determined that Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing with respect to this claim.1
On September 15, 1993, the Court held a status conference for the purpose of determining a date certain for the evidentiary hearing. In addition, the Court and the parties discussed several procedural difficulties related to the hearing and final resolution of the petition. At the conclusion of the status conference, the Court admitted into evidence the videotaped depositions of William Veale, Diane Needham, Bruce Weiss, Janice Rhodes, Andrew Schwartz, and George Neal Newton. In addition, the Court admitted all unopposed records relating to Petitioner's arrest offered as attachments to the transcript of Mr. Newton's deposition. Specifically, the Court admitted attachments 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16.2 The Court also informed the parties that it would further review the opposed attachments and determine whether they would be admitted over Respondents' objections.3
On September 28, 1993, the Court overruled Respondents' hearsay objections and determined that the other attachments were admissible as "public records" pursuant to Rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Order of 9/28/93 file doc. no. 155 {}. In addition, the Court reviewed its jurisdictional powers pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether it could and would issue subpoenas to out-of-state witnesses whose presence and testimony was sought primarily for the purpose of establishing the conditions under which Petitioner was confined.
Upon review, the Court found that although the testimony regarding jail conditions was important, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a "substantial need" for the physical presence of witnesses in Phoenix. See Order of 9/28/93 at pg. 10. Nor did the Court find that Petitioner would incur "undue hardship" if portions of the evidentiary hearing were conducted based upon videotaped depositions. In concluding that it would authorize Petitioner to subpoena witnesses in California for the purpose of conducting videotaped depositions the Court made the following findings:
The Court finds that videotaped depositions of Petitioner's potential witnesses will ensure that he receives a full and fair opportunity to adjudicate his claim while minimizing unnecessary expense to the taxpayers. Moreover, conducting videotaped depositions may eliminate the need for unnecessary and duplicative discovery which the parties indicated may be required if witnesses were required to appear before this Court in person.
Order of 9/28/93 at pg. 11.
Beginning on November 16, 1993, the Court conducted a five-day evidentiary hearing. At the hearing the Court reviewed and/or considered the videotaped testimony of the following witnesses: Andrew Schwartz; Diane Needham4; William Veale; Janice Rhodes; Bruce Weiss; George Neal Newton; Billy Sewell; Weston Kevin Sockwell; William Faulkner; Mary Caruthers; Moses Madison York; Emma Brausch; and Thomas Hernandez.5 In addition, the following witnesses testified in person: Otto L. Bendheim, M.D.; Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.; William McKinley, M.D.; Lieutenant Robert Parrick, Richmond City Police Department; and Petitioner. For convenience the Court will divide the findings of fact into three categories: (1) the various arrests which accounted for Petitioner's detention in the Richmond City Jail; (2) the conditions under which Petitioner was confined and his physical health; and (3) police conduct prior to and at the time of Petitioner's confession. It should be noted that although a large number of attachments detail when Petitioner may have appeared before a judicial officer and various judicial proceedings occurring in March of 1976, the events up to the point it which Petitioner confessed on February 25, 1976 are most relevant to the resolution of the pending claim.
This is a case burdened with ambiguities and enigmas. Although the Court has endeavored to resolve each of them in turn, many of the mysteries can never be resolved definitively or conclusively.
In this case, the Court is confronted with a street-wise defendant, James Arnett, who upon being arrested conceals his identity and asserts his Miranda rights. The day after his initial arrest Petitioner became aware that his identity was known and that he was suspected of murder in another state. Despite repeated overtures to make a statement, Petitioner repeatedly invoked his right to remain silent for approximately seven days. On the seventh day, however, and according to Respondents for no apparent reason, Arnett summons the police and provides the police with a comprehensive tape recorded statement.
In attempting to determine why Petitioner suddenly confessed after one week of silence, the Court must also consider the effect of the somewhat questionable conduct by the police who clearly capitalized upon ambiguities within the law. For example, although Arnett was arrested on multiple charges, no evidence was presented regarding why Petitioner was not taken before a judicial officer at any time prior to his confession. Although Respondents rely heavily upon the "parolehold", which technically legalized Petitioner's detention, no explanation was provided or appears in the record as to why Petitioner's arraignment was initially delayed, yet occurred within the time frames dictated by state statutes once he confessed. Also troubling is the fact that the primary officer involved in the case is a California burglary detective who continuously interacts with the defendant several times per day over the course of a week yet paradoxically asserts he has no interest in the case once it became known that Petitioner was suspected of murder. It is beyond dispute, however, that the officer's interest had little to do with the burglaries which he himself stated were minor in nature and would not have warranted constant attention for over a week. Similarly puzzling are the actions of the Arizona authorities who, after questioning Petitioner and apparently having enough circumstantial evidence to obtain a warrant, fail to do so until five days pass and Petitioner admits his involvement in the offense.
The issue is whether Arnett's will was overborne in the sense that at the time he made the confession he no longer had the ability or capacity to rationally determine his own destiny. Both now and before trial the standard of proof applicable to resolution of this inquiry has been governed by the minimal criterion of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of satisfying this standard has, however, shifted to Petitioner.
Based upon the record and the testimony presented it is clear that despite the fact the state prevailed in the motions prior to trial and on appeal, the new evidence has shifted the balance slightly and has caused the scale to dip in favor of Petitioner and a finding that the confession was involuntary and harmful.
To the extent that any Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Findings of Fact, they are hereby incorporated into these Findings of Fact.
In determining when Petitioner was arrested and upon what basis he was detained in the Richmond City Jail the Court relied, to a large extent, upon microfilm copies of arrest reports and jail records previously admitted as attachments to the deposition of George Neal Newton and referenced and discussed by various other witnesses. In addition, the Court also considered other judicial records pertaining to Petitioner submitted as attachments to the depositions of Janice Rhodes, Bruce Weiss, William Veale, and Diane Needham.6 After consideration of this evidence the Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. George Neal Newton was formerly a Richmond City Police Officer for a period of over 20 years. Although Mr. Newton was not the jailer in 1976, he did work in the jail within a reasonable time both prior to and following Petitioner's incarceration. His tenure as a jailer provided him with the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the general operation and booking procedures utilized in the Richmond City Jail. After reviewing his videotaped testimony, the Court finds Mr. Newton a knowledgeable and credible witness.
2. The arrest reports and other documents submitted as attachments to Mr. Newton's deposition and previously admitted into evidence by the Court are the most complete and accurate version of these documents currently available. Further, the Court finds that the attachments are credible evidence of the jurisdictional basis and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Karake
...including a bug-infested cell, lack of sufficient food, and denial of visits with family and friends); Arnett v. Lewis, 870 F.Supp. 1514, 1523-25, 1540 (D.Ariz.1994) (confession found to be involuntary where defendant was incarcerated in "oppressive conditions," including the lack of adequa......
-
Nguyen v. McGrath
...the motive for murder and manner in which it occurred were derived solely from the inadmissable confession, Arnett v. Lewis, 870 F.Supp. 1514, 1543 (D.Ariz.1994); and where the inadmissable evidence played a significant role in the prosecution's argument, see Brown v. Keane, 355 F.3d 82, 92......
- Northwest Airlines v. American Airlines, Civ. No. 4-91-539.
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...to the Columbe case still take place in many serious cases in which a suspect does not immediately confess. In Arnett v. Lewis , 870 F. Supp. 1514 (D.C. AZ 1994), the defendant was held for a week in a lockup under what the court characterized as oppressive conditions. He repeatedly asserte......
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...to the Columbe case still take place in many serious cases in which a suspect does not immediately confess. In Arnett v. Lewis , 870 F. Supp. 1514 (D.C. AZ 1994), the defendant was held for a week in a lockup under what the court characterized as oppressive conditions. He repeatedly asserte......
-
Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
...to the Columbe case still take place in many serious cases in which a suspect does not immediately confess. In Arnett v. Lewis , 870 F. Supp. 1514 (D.C. AZ 1994), the defendant was held for a week in a lockup under what the court characterized as oppressive conditions. He repeatedly asserte......
-
Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
...to the Columbe case still take place in many serious cases in which a suspect does not immediately confess. In Arnett v. Lewis , 870 F. Supp. 1514 (D.C. AZ 1994), the defendant was held for a week in a lockup under what the court characterized as oppressive conditions. He repeatedly asserte......