Joseph v. Buckner

• Decision Date: 09 March 2023
• Docket Number: 4:19-CV-03232-AGF
• Parties: GEORGE EDWIN JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. MICHELE BUCKNER, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

1

GEORGE EDWIN JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. MICHELE BUCKNER, Respondent.

No. 4:19-CV-03232-AGF

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of Missouri state prisoner George E. Joseph for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In July 2015, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. Petitioner was sentenced to life without parole for both counts of first-degree murder and fifty years on the count of armed criminal action, with all three sentences to run consecutively.

In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner asserts several claims of trial court error and constitutional violations related to the interrogation police conducted while he was hospitalized. For the reasons set forth below, habeas relief will be denied.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the murder of Petitioner's wife (Mary Joseph) and son (Matthew Joseph) at Petitioner's home in Cape Girardeau on May 30, 2013. Petitioner was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, and one count of armed criminal action. The pertinent facts, as summarized by the Missouri Court of Appeals in Petitioner's direct appeal, state the following:

On the morning of May 30, 2013, at [Petitioner's] home in Cape Girardeau, the bodies of Defendant's wife (Mary Joseph) and son (Matthew Joseph) were found in their beds wrapped in sheets and covered by pillows, with rosaries placed on top of them. They were both shot in the back of their heads three times with bullets fired from a .22 caliber gun. There was no sign of forced entry into the home and the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsies on the victims opined they died while sleeping. [Petitioner] was found sitting by the pool, covered in blood. He later made statements to medical personnel and police officers that he had shot himself in the pool. He sustained serious injuries to his head and was taken immediately to a local hospital. He was then flown to Barnes Jewish hospital (“the hospital”), where he underwent two surgeries and was placed on a ventilator in the Intensive Care Unit. Police recovered a .22 caliber gun from the pool alongside a spent casing.^[1]

On June 4, 2013, the hospital called Sergeant Don Perry (“Officer Perry”)^[2]to inform him that [Petitioner] had been removed from the ventilator and was able to speak. Officer Perry and Sergeant Jeff Bonham (“Officer Bonham”) drove to St. Louis to interview [Petitioner] about what occurred at his home on May 30 and collect DNA evidence. In order to visit [Petitioner], all persons including the police, had to go through the hospital's security. Pursuant to the hospital's policy for crime victims, [Petitioner] was located on a secure floor with limited outside access.

The officers donned protective suits and recorded their interview with a video camera. Before the officers began questioning [Petitioner], he asked to speak with his attorney. [Petitioner] repeatedly told the officers he did not want to answer any questions without his attorney, and at one point asked them to stop questioning him without his attorney present. However, the officers continued to question [Petitioner], and after about twenty minutes he stated “There's nobody else involved. I'm not going to shoot anybody.” The officers asked for more details about what happened but [Petitioner] did not answer any more of their questions. He told them at one point he would get out of the hospital soon and he would talk to them with his attorney. Officer Perry stated “I don't know if you didn't want your family to go through the shame of the financial issues” to which [Petitioner] replied, “That's what it was.” The officers left [Petitioner] after questioning him for two hours.

As the officers left, they encountered [Petitioner's] family members and helped them gain access to [Petitioner's] hospital room. The police informed the hospital's security who the family members were and that they needed to obtain [Petitioner's] signature in order to proceed with burying [Petitioner's] wife and son. [Petitioner's] brother, Gerard Joseph, and brother-in-law, David Snell, visited him along with other family members. Mr. Snell testified he was close to [Petitioner], and he was one of the first people to arrive at [Petitioner's] home on the morning of May 30 and discover the bodies of his nephew and sister-in-law. Mr. Snell testified he visited [Petitioner] in the hospital shortly after the police left, and [Petitioner] told him, “He had to put them in a better place” and he “was so sorry.”

On June 7, 2013, [Petitioner] was arrested when he was discharged from the hospital. He was charged with two counts of murder in the first-degree in violation of § 565.020. Defendant was also charged with one count of armed criminal action under § 571.015 for using a gun to kill Mary Joseph.

State v. Joseph, 515 S.W.3d 735, 740-41 (Mo.Ct.App. 2016).

Pre-Trial

Prior to trial, Petitioner filed two motions to suppress his statements made to the police at the hospital.

October 2013 Motion to Suppress

On October 13, 2013, the trial court heard Petitioner's first motion to suppress. Doc. No. 11-1, Mot. Hr'g Tr., at 11. Petitioner's counsel, Bryan Greaser, argued that Petitioner was subjected to a custodial interrogation without being read his Miranda rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that his statements were involuntary, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. No. 11-6 at 4. Prior to the hearing, the trial court reviewed the video recording of the interview at the hospital. Officer Perry and Officer Bonham both testified at the hearing. Officer Perry testified that when he and Officer Bonham visited Petitioner at the hospital on June 4, 2013, there was no local law enforcement involved, no hospital security involved, Petitioner was not under guard nor was he in any way shackled or handcuffed to his hospital bed. See Doc. No. 11-1 at 1617. However, the trial court noted on the record, that upon reviewing the video evidence, it was clear Petitioner was not going anywhere, and while Officer Perry told Petitioner he could stop talking if he wanted to, it was clear Petitioner was not able to walk out of the room in his condition. Id. at 49.

Officer Perry stated that Petitioner was not going to be arrested that day, even if he had given a detailed confession, largely in part due to his medical condition. Id. at 18 (“[Petitioner] was going to need greater medical attention than could be provided in a jail setting.”). Officer Perry testified that Petitioner was conscious and alert for the entire conversation, never asked the officers to leave, and even told the nurse that it was okay for the Officers to be in his room. Id. at 20-23, 30. The officers were with Petitioner for about two hours, but did not question him the entire time; the officers took fingerprints, DNA swabs, spoke with medical staff, and even left the room at one point to speak to each other. Id. at 20.

Officer Perry also admitted that Petitioner asked for an attorney five to six times during their conversation. Id. at 21. The officers did not leave the room or cease questioning when Petitioner asked for an attorney. When asked why they did not leave the room or cease their interview, Officer Perry explained, “we were going to attempt to see if he would consent to the buccal swabs and then try to persuade him through conversation the reasons why we wanted to talk with him at this point in time,” and again reaffirmed that Petitioner was not in custody or restrained. Id. at 22. The officers asked Petitioner if he felt in any way threatened by them, or if he felt that he had been tricked, abused or mistreated in any way, and Petitioner indicated that he did not. Id. at 30.

The officers informed Petitioner that his family members were on their way to the hospital, and offered to stay for his protection, but Petitioner indicated that he did not want them to stay, so the officers left before Petitioner's family members arrived. Id. at 24.

The trial court found that Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated and denied the motion. Doc. No. 11-6 at 4.

June 2015 Motion to Suppress

On June 12, 2015, Petitioner again sought to suppress his statements made to the police at the hospital.^[3] Defense counsel, Public Defender Cynthia Dryden, presented testimony from family members who visited Petitioner on June 4, 2013, after the officers left. Petitioner's brother, Gerard Joseph testified that Petitioner was “groggy, delirious, and delusional” on the day the officers questioned him. Doc. No. 11-1 at 180. Gerard Joseph also testified that the hospital requested an advance directive for Petitioner that day and a number of doctors, including what he believed to be the psychiatry department, evaluated Petitioner before they allowed him to sign the directive. Id. at 181.

Petitioner's brother-in-law, David Snell, testified that Petitioner was awake and able to speak on June 4th, although Petitioner later told Snell that he had been hallucinating and he couldn't fully remember what happened when Snell visited him.

Defense counsel submitted Petitioner's medical records which indicated that on June 5, 2013, Petitioner scored below normal on the “Montreal Cognitive Assessment,” which indicated that he would benefit from further assessment and intervention in memory, language, and executive functioning. Id. at 188. The records also indicated that Defendant was on anti-seizure and neuroleptic medications on June 4, 2013.^[4] The medical records generally indicated that Petitioner was alert and doing well, but...