Sweeney v. Carter

• Decision Date: 15 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 02-2165.,02-2165.
• Citation: 361 F.3d 327
• Parties: Charles E. SWEENEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steve CARTER, Attorney General of Indiana, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

361 F.3d 327

Charles E. SWEENEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steve CARTER, Attorney General of Indiana, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-2165.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 15, 2003.

Decided March 15, 2004.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 6, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David E. Mosley (argued), Mosley, Betrand, Jacobs & McCall, Jeffersonville, IN, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Scott A. Kreider (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BAUER, COFFEY, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

Laypersons sometimes do not realize that the federal government and the state governments are separate sovereigns for purposes of criminal prosecutions, and thus that prosecutors from both may pursue charges for conduct covered by both laws. Lawyers should know better. To his regret, Charles Sweeney made this mistake after his lawyer concluded a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office in conjunction with certain charges stemming from the murder of Daniel Guthrie. The lawyer told Sweeney that this agreement, coupled with an alleged oral promise from the state prosecutor's office, protected him from any use the state might have made of these statements. The state of Indiana thought differently, and based on the information Sweeney gave to the federal authorities, it investigated, brought charges, and convicted him for Guthrie's murder. After exhausting his appeals at the state level, Sweeney sought habeas corpus relief on the ground that his attorneys' mistaken advice about the alleged use-immunity agreement amounted to constitutionally ineffective assistance under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (not the Sixth). Because no such right has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Sweeney's petition.

I

Guthrie never made it home from a fishing trip he took with Sweeney on May 28, 1991. Authorities in Clark County, Indiana, began an investigation, with Sweeney as the prime suspect. But after more than a year, detectives had failed to turn up any concrete leads — or even a body or murder weapon. The investigation quickly revived, however, after Sweeney was arrested and indicted on federal charges for placing a pipe bomb underneath the car of the lead detective in the murder investigation. Sweeney's arrest for the pipe-bomb incident, combined with drug possession charges, placed him in federal custody.

On June 26, 1992, Sweeney entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office on the charges relating to the pipe bomb. In return for a promised motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and the dropping of several of the federal charges, Sweeney agreed to plead guilty to planting the pipe bomb, to implicate the others who were involved in the incident, and to disclose both the whereabouts of Guthrie's body and any information relating to the cause of Guthrie's death. Prior to concluding this agreement, Sweeney's attorneys telephoned the Clark County prosecutor and asked if he would grant Sweeney use immunity for any statements he made to the federal authorities in connection with the plea agreement. What happened next is the subject of dispute. Defense counsel claims that the Clark County prosecutor orally promised to grant full use immunity, or at least suggested that he would file a murder charge only if the charge was supported by "other evidence." The prosecutor denies that any offer of use immunity was made.

What is clear, at least for our purposes, is that after this conversation, defense counsel advised Sweeney that a use-immunity agreement was "carved in stone" and that Sweeney should take the deal with federal prosecutors and make as complete a statement as he could. Four days later, during a June 30 meeting with federal prosecutors and other authorities, Sweeney revealed the location of Guthrie's body and told his version of events, as follows. He and Guthrie had indeed gone fishing on May 28. On the way home from the fishing trip, the two men agreed to swap some of Sweeney's marijuana plants for a saddle owned by Guthrie. Upon arriving at Sweeney's home, Sweeney sent Guthrie out into the woods with a shovel, two buckets, and a 9mm handgun to obtain the plants. Meanwhile, Sweeney headed into town to play bingo. When Guthrie's wife telephoned the next morning to inquire about the whereabouts of her husband, Sweeney went into the woods to search for Guthrie. He found Guthrie dead of a gunshot wound to the head. Not wanting to risk discovery of his marijuana operation, Sweeney buried Guthrie's body and disposed of his possessions.

With the benefit of this information, the police obtained and executed a search warrant and soon located Guthrie's body near Sweeney's property. Sweeney's knowledge of the location of the body was an important piece of evidence at Sweeney's subsequent trial for the murder of Guthrie. Apparently not believing the bingo story, a jury convicted Sweeney of murder. Sweeney was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment, to be served at the conclusion of his 210-month federal sentence for the pipe bomb incident.

II

Our review of Sweeney's habeas corpus petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which permits a federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court reached a decision on the merits of a claim, and that decision was either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Brown v. Sternes, 304 F.3d 677, 690 (7th Cir.2002). Whether a state ruling runs afoul of § 2254(d)(1) is a legal determination that we review de novo. Schaff v. Snyder, 190 F.3d 513, 522 (7th Cir.1999).

At the outset, we need to clarify exactly what Sweeney is presenting on appeal. The district court considered and rejected three arguments: (1) that the failure of the federal authorities to give Sweeney Miranda warnings before he made his June 30 proffer statement violated his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination with respect to the subsequent state murder charges (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)); (2) that the statements he made to federal authorities in connection with the plea agreement were not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause because he was not adequately forewarned, whether by federal agents or his own defense counsel, that his statements could be used as evidence against him by the state authorities; and (3) that his defense attorneys' mistaken advice concerning the alleged use-immunity agreement rendered Sweeney's counsel constitutionally ineffective under the Fifth Amendment. In his brief before this court, however, Sweeney presents only the question "[w]hether Sweeney's counsel provided ineffective assistance when erroneously advising him that he had `use immunity' and that he should cooperate with the [federal] government and give a complete statement regarding the murder of Daniel Guthrie." Although other parts of Sweeney's brief touch upon the Miranda and due process claims, it is not clear whether he is trying to pursue those theories independently, or if he instead is mentioning them only in support of his ineffective assistance claim.

It would not help Sweeney even if we gave him the benefit of the doubt and treated all three issues as if they were before us, because we agree with the district court that neither the Miranda nor the due process claim has any merit. This is so notwithstanding several apparent missteps on the part of the courts that have already reviewed this. For instance, the Indiana Supreme Court and the district court agreed that defense counsel's advising of Sweeney of his rights prior to his making the June 30 statement to federal authorities — a fact established by substantial testimony at trial — served as a "fully effective equivalent" to the usual Miranda warnings. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476, 86 S.Ct. 1602. No authority of which we are aware holds that a suspect's discussions with defense counsel can double for the usual warnings given by law enforcement officers; indeed, the contrary position — that whatever warnings are otherwise required by Miranda must be administered by the public authorities — is quite well-established. The "effective equivalent" language in Miranda has been limited to situations in which police officers have botched or otherwise truncated the usual warnings. See, e.g., Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); Richardson v. Duckworth, 834 F.2d 1366, 1370-71 (7th Cir. 1987).

The record here shows unequivocally that Sweeney knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. We evaluate that question in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Jackson, 300 F.3d 740, 748 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Smith, 218 F.3d 777, 780 (7th Cir.2000). In addition, "[a] waiver need not be express, but may be inferred from the defendant's understanding of his rights coupled with a course of conduct reflecting his desire to give up his right to remain silent and have the counsel of an attorney." Jackson, 300 F.3d at 748 (internal quotation marks omitted). At least three facts are relevant here: Sweeney was accompanied by defense counsel at both the June 26 and June 30 meetings; he discussed the concept of use immunity with his lawyer prior to those meetings; and he attended the June 30 meeting with federal authorities pursuant to the plea agreement and for the express purpose of making the statements he now seeks to challenge. These facts are sufficient to infer a knowing and voluntary waiver on...