Green v. Scully
| Decision Date | 20 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1031,1031 |
| Citation | 850 F.2d 894 |
| Parties | Robert GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles SCULLY, Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee. ocket 87-2491. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jonathan M. Kratter, The Legal Aid Soc., New York City (Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Kimberly Muradaz, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara D. Underwood, Asst. Dist. Atty., Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Kings County, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before OAKES, KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Robert Green appeals from the denial in the Eastern District of New York of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, 675 F.Supp. 67. He was convicted of two particularly brutal murders at a jury trial in New York State Supreme Court where the principal evidence against him was his own tape-recorded confession taken during police interrogation.
On Sunday March 26, 1978 23-year-old Shirley Williams and her five-year-old daughter Latisha were found murdered in their Brooklyn, New York apartment. New York City Police Detective Byrnes was assigned to investigate the crime. He went to the scene of the crime where he observed the victims' bodies submerged in a bathtub full of water. He spoke to Shirley Williams' sister, Dolores, who said that Shirley had told her on the telephone that petitioner Green was visiting her the previous day. Byrnes attempted to locate petitioner Green and his brother Michael, Shirley's former boyfriend, at their mother's house. He made several visits to the mother's house without success, finally leaving his card with a message for petitioner to call him. Several weeks later on April 17, 1978 petitioner was apprehended in connection with a burglary by New York City Police Officer Joseph Zawicki. Zawicki took petitioner to the 71st precinct and then called Detective Byrnes, whose card he had found on petitioner. Officer Zawicki gave Green his Miranda rights, and Green said that he was willing to answer questions without an attorney being present.
Detective Byrnes and his partner, Detective Fred Hazel, came to the 71st precinct that same afternoon. They first asked petitioner when he had last seen Shirley Williams. When Green responded that he had last seen her a few weeks before he heard she had been killed, the detectives stepped out of the interrogation room to evaluate this statement in light of Dolores Williams' statement that Shirley had said that Robert Green was in her apartment on March 25. When the detectives returned, they discovered that Green had escaped through a window. Within 15 minutes he was recaptured in the neighborhood by Officer Zawicki.
Detectives Byrnes and Hazel then took Green to the homicide office at the 68th precinct, arriving at 3:40 on the afternoon of April 17. At 4:20 p.m. the detectives gave Green his Miranda warnings and he agreed to talk to them. The first part of Petitioner's assertions of his innocence and Detective Hazel's averments that the police already had all the evidence they needed to convict petitioner dominated the early discussion. The first words spoken by petitioner on the recording are: Detective Hazel elaborated on some of the evidence, suggesting that petitioner had gone into the bathroom, washed his hands, and left hand prints. The detective repeated Green continued to dispute the detective's claim that they had evidence inculpating him, challenging Detective Hazel to produce some clear fingerprints in blood that could be identified as his. Detective Hazel vouched for the evidence, saying that he had personally "checked it out," and repeatedly asserted his knowledge of Green's guilt:
the interrogation was not recorded, but during the recorded portion petitioner--apparently referring to a threatening statement made by Detective Byrnes before the tape recorder was turned on--said: "you heard what he said about the electric chair." By his recorded answers petitioner also indicated that Detective Hazel had previously questioned him about the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murders and about a man petitioner had said he saw entering Shirley Williams' apartment building just as he was leaving. Detective Hazel further recalled petitioner had admitted during the unrecorded interrogation that he had stopped by the victims' apartment for a few minutes on the day they were killed and conceded that he had lied to the detectives when they asked him about it earlier at the 71st precinct. After petitioner asked to speak to Detective Hazel alone, Detective Byrnes went into another room and turned on a device that allowed him both to hear and record the conversation. The recorder was on continuously for over an hour. Detective Byrnes made brief periodic visits to the interview room during the questioning. It is this recorded confession that constituted the principal evidence against Green at his state trial for the two murders
Hazel: I know you did it. I know you you did it, Robert. I know you did it.
Petitioner: You don't know I did it!
Petitioner insisted that he would never admit to the murders because if he did he would not be able to face his and Shirley's families. Detective Hazel assured Green that he could help in dealing with his family and suggested Green must have been mentally ill when he killed Shirley and Latisha. Detective Hazel and Green are both black and frequently referred to each other as "brother." Hazel expressed sympathy and offered to help saying that he would talk to the District Attorney's office about getting psychiatric help for petitioner. The offer to help was repeated a number of times. For instance, Detective Hazel told petitioner that he would tell the prosecutor that Later, he added, "you tell me what happen I call the D.A. I get him down here man we get you some help." But the detective also advised Green not to think that he was going to escape responsibility for what he did: "Hey man, you going to go to jail," to which petitioner responded "Some help O.K."
The detective then took a different tack, asking Faced with the possibility of Detective Hazel's withdrawal, petitioner sought to continue the conversation:
Could we, could we clear in my mind what you talking about, that I lied about? You just ask me about some of the things that I had on, and I explain it to you, and you just ask me about the guy, who, who the guy, who came in, ah, ah that's what I lied about, oh yes, right as far as you're concerned, I did it, and I'm just sitting here lying right, right, oh yes, I can dig it, yeah, right that's what I lied about. That's what I lied about right, well I think if you finish with me, you can take me to the cell.
This is from the scene and the palm prints over here, and I examined them under a microscope, and they match, right! Then blood stains that were found here were found here, blood stains and palm prints will match, the blood stains and fingerprints match the blood of the deceased.
In fact, it was clear at trial that Green's palm prints and his fingerprints did not match those taken from the victims' apartment. Detective Hazel admitted that he did not know the results of the fingerprint comparisons during his questioning of Green. Before leaving the room, Detective Byrnes told Green that Detective Hazel had compassion for him because Hazel was inexperienced while he, Byrnes, did not care about petitioner.
Green then began to consider cooperating. He asked what guarantee he would have if he were to "tell [Hazel] some of the things that [he] want[ed] to hear." Detective Hazel replied, After being reassured once again that Detective Hazel would tell the District Attorney's office that he needed help, petitioner agreed to tell the truth. At first he gave a rambling account of his past violent behavior, recalling an incident in which his brother's former girlfriend provoked his brother into hitting him and knocking him out. He blacked out on other occasions: once he killed a kitten without realizing what he was doing and he often fought with his girlfriend, Sharon, "for no reasons."
Green turned to the day of the murders, claiming still that he did not remember most of what happened at Shirley Williams' apartment that day. He recalled that Shirley let him into the house, and the two of them talked about religion. She received a telephone call from her sister, but the call got disconnected after a few seconds. When her sister called back, Shirley told her that he was in the apartment. (Telephone Company records verified the two telephone calls.) While Green was there, Shirley served breakfast and Latisha played with her hula hoop. The last thing he remembered was Shirley's bending over in Latisha's room to put something in a dresser drawer. Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Griffin
...(internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1082, 113 S. Ct. 1053, 122 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1993) ; Green v. Scully , 850 F.2d 894, 903 (2d Cir.) (noting that falsely informing defendant that his fingerprints matched prints in blood in victims’ apartment "is the type of police tac......
-
Quartararo v. Mantello
...and crying. T. 48, 220. The "final and most critical circumstance", however, is "the law enforcement officers' conduct." Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 902 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 374, 102 L.Ed.2d 363 (1988). Prior to petitioner's confession, Palumbo told petitioner......
-
State v. J.G.
...confessions. In reaching this conclusion, we treat the officer's promise as part of the totality of the circumstances. See Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 901 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 945, 109 S.Ct. 374, 102 L.Ed.2d 363 (1988); United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1073 (4th Cir.1......
-
U.S. v. Baldwin
...e.g., United States v. Yunis, 859 F.2d 953, 958 (D.C.Cir.1988); United States v. Burns, 15 F.3d 211, 216 (1st Cir.1994); Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 900 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 945, 109 S.Ct. 374, 102 L.Ed.2d 363 (1988); United States v. Velasquez, 885 F.2d 1076, 1086 (3d Cir.1......
-
Law, Fact, and Procedural Justice
...courts, trial judges are tasked with determining the voluntariness of a conviction before trial." (citations omitted)); Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 900 (2d Cir. 1988) ("Whether Green waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination presents a question of law that we review......
-
A picture's worth a thousand words: conversational versus eyewitness testimony in criminal convictions.
...confession was voluntary even though the defendant was wounded and officers interrogated him with guns drawn); Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 903-04 (2d Cir. 1988) (finding that a confession was voluntary where police lied about the evidence they had, falsely threatened the suspect with the......