Quadrini v. Clusen
| Decision Date | 11 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1733,87-1733 |
| Parties | Alex QUADRINI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Donald CLUSEN, Superintendent of the State of Wisconsin Green Bay Reformatory, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Thomas G. Wilmouth, Gerald P. Boyle, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner-appellant.
William L. Gansner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wisconsin Dept. of Justice, Madison, Wis., for respondent-appellee.
Before COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Alex Quadrini appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Quadrini was convicted before a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on October 18, 1980. We affirm.
On May 18, 1980, John Ristau, the owner of the Glynholm Motel in Kenosha County, Wisconsin, found the body of David Leverett in Room 8 of the motel. Shortly before the discovery of the body the owner received the key to Room 8 from an individual later identified as Alex Quadrini, the petitioner in this case. Ristau contacted the Kenosha County Sheriff's office to report the discovery of the deceased and informed the police later that he and his wife had observed the petitioner entering a taxi after the discovery of Leverett's body. Pursuant to a radio dispatch based upon this information, a City of Kenosha police officer stopped the taxi in which Quadrini was a passenger, arrested him, and transported him to the Kenosha County Sheriff's Department. 1
At approximately 3:20 p.m. on the same day, Detective Crichton and Deputy Copen of the sheriff's department took Quadrini into an interrogation room. Crichton read Quadrini his constitutional rights 2 and asked him whether he understood. Quadrini stated that he did and that he was willing to talk with the officers at that time. The interrogation lasted approximately 45 minutes, and the officers testified that Quadrini was cooperative and appeared relaxed. At the conclusion of the interrogation, Quadrini made a general exculpatory statement and consented to the search of his flight bag, which was retrieved from the taxicab at the time of his arrest. The bag contained his own belongings as well as those of the deceased. Quadrini identified all of the items in the flight bag.
On the following day, May 19, 1980, the petitioner made his first court appearance where bond was set at $50,000 cash. Later that same day, formal charges were filed charging him with the first-degree murder of David Leverett. 3 The petitioner's initial appearance on the complaint took place the next day on May 20, 1980. 4 The events transpiring between the petitioner's appearance at the bond hearing on May 19 and his initial appearance on May 20, particularly the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's incriminating statements made to the police during the custodial interrogation on May 19, are challenged on appeal.
Following the petitioner's appearance at the bond hearing, Sergeant Duma of the sheriff's department took the petitioner to the juvenile division, another office in the sheriff's department. 5 Detective Norlander was working at his desk in the juvenile division when Duma arrived with Quadrini; he agreed to watch Quadrini while Duma interviewed Quadrini's cell mate. Norlander had Quadrini's dinner brought to him at approximately 6:15 p.m., and did not converse with him until 7 p.m., when Detective Andrekus came into the office. At that time Norlander repeated the Miranda warnings to Quadrini, and Quadrini responded that he understood them. Quadrini specifically replied that he did not want an attorney present despite the fact that after his court appearance earlier that day he had been told by an investigator from the public defender's office that he should not make a statement. Norlander, Andrekus and Quadrini engaged in a conversation about the United States Navy, Quadrini's family, and the problems Quadrini had been experiencing with alcohol. Quadrini admitted that he tended to get violent when he was inebriated and frequently had trouble remembering what had happened during the time he was intoxicated. During this conversation Quadrini talked about the night of Leverett's death and stated that when he returned to the motel room Leverett was asleep under the covers. Norlander and Andrekus then inquired whether Quadrini had anything to do with Leverett's death. Quadrini responded by stating: "My body may have, but my mind didn't." Quadrini also spoke of his fantasies, including one of a sexual nature and the other of killing someone with his bare hands. This conversation continued until Sergeant Duma entered the juvenile office.
When Duma entered the office at approximately 8:30 p.m., the detectives, in the presence of the petitioner, informed Duma that Quadrini had made an incriminating statement. Norlander further informed Duma that the petitioner had been advised by an investigator from the public defender's office not to make a statement, but that after Norlander had apprised him of his rights, Quadrini chose to make a statement anyway. After Duma entered the office, Quadrini took the business cards of the public defender and his investigator from his pocket and displayed the cards on the table in front of Duma, Norlander and Andrekus, but the three officers had no discussion concerning them. Sergeant Duma subsequently questioned Quadrini, in the presence of the two detectives, and Quadrini stated that he felt he had a problem with violent behavior following excessive drinking. Duma advised Quadrini that if he had anything to do with the death of David Leverett, undoubtedly, he did have a problem. Duma also told the petitioner that admitting he had anything to do with the murder would take a great deal of courage, but would be a step toward seeking help for his drinking problem. Quadrini then calmly told Duma, Norlander and Andrekus what had happened after he entered the motel room, describing in detail how he had strangled Leverett with his belt.
Thereafter, Duma called Kenosha County District Attorney John Landa and asked him to come to the Department. The District Attorney talked to Quadrini for approximately 45 minutes and inquired about Quadrini's schooling and his present state of mind in order to satisfy himself that Quadrini had not been threatened or coerced or given any promises to induce him into confessing. Quadrini replied that no threats, promises or other coercive measures had been employed by the police officers. Landa also asked Quadrini about his conversation with the public defender's investigator. Landa questioned Quadrini at length as to whether he understood his rights, and Quadrini responded affirmatively, stating he understood his rights and that Detective Norlander had fully explained them earlier. Quadrini stated "that he just wanted to clear the matter up and get the help he felt he needed." At this point, District Attorney Landa and Norlander left the juvenile division. Duma and Andrekus again advised Quadrini of his rights. Quadrini once more stated that he understood his rights, signed a waiver of rights form, and repeated his incriminating statement on a tape recording. In this taped statement the petitioner specifically stated that Detective Norlander had informed him of his constitutional rights at 7 p.m. on May 19, 1980, and that it was his desire to give the law enforcement officers his statement despite being advised not to do so by the public defender's investigator. Despite Quadrini's assertion on tape that it was his intention to make an incriminating statement to the police, shortly thereafter on the advice of counsel, he changed his mind and petitioned the court on motion to have the entire taped statement suppressed.
On October 13, 1980, a pretrial suppression hearing was held at which seven police officers testified about the events leading up to the confession. Following the hearing, the state trial judge made the following findings:
"Going first to the statement of the 18th, I find that the defendant was in custody and when interviewed by Detective Crichton was properly advised of his Miranda rights and that the defendant understood them; and that there were no threats, promises or other improper inducements conveyed to the defendant in return for giving any statement, so that I further find that the statement given by the defendant was knowingly and intelligently given, and I conclude that the statement was in all respects properly given and taken.
The court also finds that the defendant freely and voluntarily and knowingly and intelligently consented to the search of the bag and the seizure of the articles therein contained based upon his free and voluntary execution of the consent search received on this record as State's Exhibit no. 4.
The court further finds that the defendant in custody and after having been specifically advised by an investigator from the public defender's office and to not make any statement in which the court finds the defendant clearly understood, nevertheless freely and voluntarily and knowingly and intelligently chose to give a statement. I find that Detective Norlander properly gave the Miranda rights to the defendant at approximately 7 p.m. on 5-19-80, that the defendant understood them, and nonetheless, and with full understanding that he had been specifically advised not to make a statement chose to do so.
This court finds that the fact that the defendant had been specifically advised of such right and this court further finding that the defendant clearly understood those rights serves as a further basis for the conclusion that the heavy burden ... has been met [by the state] ... [to find] that the defendant did intelligently waive his right to have counsel present and to remain silent, and that he therefore freely and voluntarily proceeded to give a statement.
The court further finds that any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walden v. City of Chicago, No. 04 C 0047.
...violated the accused's right to counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Spruill, 296 F.3d 580, 585 (7th Cir.2002) (citing Quadrini v. Clusen, 864 F.2d 577, 585 (7th Cir.1989)). Under the Sixth Amendment, "an accused person is entitled to counsel at critical stages of a criminal prosecution aft......
-
Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
...Reed v. Anderson, 461 F.2d 739, 742 (3d Cir.1972).” United States v. Hooker, supra, 418 F.Supp. at 479; see also Quadrini v. Clusen, 864 F.2d 577, 586 n. 8 (7th Cir.1989). In Higazy v. Templeton, supra, 505 F.3d at 161, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that the United ......
-
State v. Stevens
...different offense because the suspect did not express his desire to have a lawyer assist him in the interrogation. In Quadrini v. Clusen, 864 F.2d 577 (7th Cir.1989), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered the question of what constitutes invocation of the right to counsel.......
-
People v. Makiel
...at 146, 175 Ill.Dec. 188, 599 N.E.2d 1202.) His confession was thus wrongly suppressed by the circuit court. In Quadrini v. Clusen (7th Cir.1989), 864 F.2d 577, the court found no invocation of the right to counsel where the defendant showed police the public defender's and public defender ......