U.S. v. Cody, 96-3954

Decision Date03 June 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-3954,96-3954
Citation114 F.3d 772
Parties47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 205 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Argentra CODY, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

D. Christopher Lombardo, Clayton, MO, argued, for appellant.

Gabriel E. Gore, Assistant U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Argentra Cody was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The District Court 1 sentenced Cody to concurrent terms of 188 months' imprisonment on each count. Cody appeals her convictions, arguing that the District Court erred by admitting into evidence her taped confession and by limiting her cross-examination of two government witnesses. We affirm.

I.

On February 16, 1996, after receiving information from a confidential informant that Cody was distributing cocaine base from her mother's home, St. Louis police officers began surveillance on the residence. The officers observed activity at the residence consistent with drug dealing. When Cody and a young man left the house in a vehicle, one team of officers followed them to a nearby gas station. Cody parked at the gas station, exited her vehicle and, when she noticed two officers approaching her, screamed and discarded five small plastic bags she had been holding in her hand. Later testing confirmed that the bags contained a total of twenty-one grams of cocaine base. The police handcuffed Cody and notified the investigation's lead officer, who was still conducting surveillance at the residence, that Cody had been detained. Officer Hines, the lead officer, arrived within minutes, read Cody her constitutional rights, and transported her to the police station. Officer Hines testified that Cody was not questioned at the time of her arrest, nor did she volunteer a statement.

While Cody was in custody at the police station, Officer Burle continued surveillance at the residence and observed a young girl, later identified as Cody's niece, leave the house and gingerly deposit one object into a trash dumpster and another under the dumpster. These two items, a cardboard box containing a total of 148 grams of cocaine base packaged in plastic bags and an electronic scale, and a .380 caliber automatic handgun, were later recovered by police and taken to the station. When Officers Hines and Burle confronted Cody with this physical evidence and informed her that police had observed a young girl place these items in and under the dumpster, Cody identified the girl as her niece and began making incriminating statements. Officer Hines immediately stopped Cody and again advised her of her constitutional rights. Cody did not execute a written waiver form, but subsequently made a taped confession in which she admitted possessing with intent to distribute the twenty-one grams of cocaine base seized at the gas station and the 148 grams of cocaine base seized from the dumpster.

II.

Cody first argues that the District Court erred by admitting her taped confession into evidence. After being arrested and advised of her constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Cody alleges that she expressly invoked her right to remain silent. She also claims that the police questioned her in violation of her right to remain silent and that her later confession was not the result of a voluntary waiver of that right. The District Court, based on the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, 2 found that Cody never asserted her right to remain silent. The court further found that, even if Cody did assert this right, when officers confronted Cody at the police station with the drugs and gun seized from the trash dumpster outside her mother's residence and commented that these items were placed in the dumpster by a young girl, they did not re-initiate custodial questioning in violation of Cody's right to remain silent, nor did the officers coerce either Cody's waiver of her right to remain silent or her voluntary statement. Consequently, the District Court denied Cody's motion to suppress her confession.

We review a district court's finding that a defendant did not assert her constitutional right to remain silent for clear error. See United States v. Winn, 969 F.2d 642, 643 (8th Cir.1992) (standard of review). The District Court, based on the testimony of Officers Hines and Burle, found that Cody did not invoke her right to remain silent either immediately after her arrest or later when she was confronted with evidence at the police station. We cannot conclude that this finding is clearly erroneous.

Furthermore, even if we were to accept Cody's assertion that she explicitly invoked her right to remain silent when she was arrested, we would reach the same result. An invocation of the right to remain silent does not mean that questioning can never be resumed, see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), nor does it mean that a defendant cannot later waive this right, see North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 374-75, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 1757-59, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).

Once a person in custody has invoked her right to remain silent, admissibility of any of her subsequent statements depends on whether her " 'right to cut off questioning' was 'scrupulously honored.' " Mosley at 423 U.S. at 104, 96 S.Ct. at 326 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1628, 1630). Once the right is invoked, the police must immediately cease questioning, allow a "significant amount of time" to pass before questioning begins again, re-advise the detainee of her Miranda rights, and limit the ensuing interrogation to questions regarding a separate crime not the subject of the first questioning session. United States v. House, 939 F.2d 659, 662 (8th Cir.1991).

Here, Cody was not questioned after she was arrested at the gas station, was advised of her Miranda rights, and allegedly invoked her right to remain silent. Nor was she questioned immediately upon her arrival at the police station. Rather, a period of more than three hours elapsed between the moment Cody allegedly invoked her right to remain silent and the moment Officers Burle and Hines confronted Cody with the evidence retrieved from the dumpster. After being confronted with this evidence of additional drug crimes, Cody spontaneously made incriminating statements. Officer Hines immediately interrupted Cody's confession to re-advise her of her Miranda rights. Even if Cody invoked her right to remain silent, it was not violated when police later confronted her with additional evidence, see Mosley 423 U.S. at 106, 96 S.Ct. at 327-28, and her subsequent confession was admissible.

Likewise, an invocation of the right to remain silent can be waived by subsequently making a voluntary confession to the police. See, e.g., Butler, 441 U.S. at 374-75, 99 S.Ct. at 1757-59 (noting that waiver may be inferred from particular facts and circumstances surrounding a case), cited in House, 939 F.2d at 662. We review the ultimate question of the voluntariness of a defendant's confession de novo, but we review the district court's factual findings surrounding the confession for clear error. See United States v. Magness, 69 F.3d 872, 874 (8th Cir.1995). The test for determining the voluntariness of a confession "is whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, pressures exerted upon the suspect have overborne his will." United States v. Jorgensen, 871 F.2d 725, 729 (8th Cir.1989).

Cody claims that when the officers informed her at the police station that an unidentified girl had placed the seized drugs and gun in the dumpster, she felt compelled to admit her ownership of the contraband. We are not convinced. There is no evidence that the officers engaged in activity that served to overbear Cody's will, causing her to confess involuntarily. A thorough review of the record before us reveals that Cody voluntarily made her statement to police.

Assuming that Cody did invoke her right to remain silent when she was arrested, we conclude that the police did not improperly initiate custodial questioning in violation of this right and that Cody waived her right to remain silent by voluntarily confessing. The District Court's admission of Cody's taped confession was not in error.

III.

Cody next argues that the District Court improperly restricted her cross-examination of two police officers involved in the investigation. We review the district court's decision to limit cross-examination for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Caldwell, 88 F.3d 522, 524 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 625, 136 L.Ed.2d 547 (1996), reversing only if "there has been a clear abuse of discretion and a showing of prejudice to the defendant," United States v. Barrett, 937 F.2d 1346, 1349 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Rubin, 836 F.2d 1096, 1099 (8th Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 916, 112 S.Ct. 322, 116 L.Ed.2d 263 (1991). The District Court's limitation on Cody's right to cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.

On the morning of trial, defense counsel presented the government with an unofficial transcript of the suppression hearing prepared by a transcription service at defense counsel's request from a tape recording of the proceedings. Defense counsel intended to use this unofficial transcript to impeach government witnesses at trial with prior inconsistent testimony given during the suppression hearing. The government objected to the use of this transcript and, although the precise grounds on which the District Court based its decision are unclear from the record, the court refused to allow defense counsel to use the unofficial transcript for impeachment purposes. However, the District Court did not rule out the possibility that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Weeks v. Angelone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 10, 1999
    ...suspect again. A significant period of time between interrogations does not require a durational minimum. Compare United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 775-76 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that three hours was significant amount of time) with United States v. Barone, 968 F.2d 1378, 1385 (1st Cir.1......
  • United States v. Bell, No. CR00-4104-MWB (N.D. Iowa 4/4/2001)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • April 4, 2001
    ...to the police his wish to remain silent generally are inadmissible. As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 1997): Once a person in custody has invoked her right to remain silent, admissibility of any of her subsequent statements depend......
  • Davie v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • August 6, 2003
    ...him again. A significant period of time between interrogations does not require a durational minimum. Compare United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 775-76 (8th Cir.1997) (three hours was significant amount of time) with United States v. Barone, 968 F.2d 1378, 1385 (1st Cir.1992) (more than t......
  • State v. Ballew
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • August 14, 2015
    ...listed in table at 160 N.C.App. 710 (2003) ).36 Marco, supra note 34, 220 Neb. at 100, 368 N.W.2d at 473. Accord, U.S. v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772 (8th Cir.1997) ; U.S. v. Denetclaw, 96 F.3d 454 (10th Cir.1996) ; 28 Charles Alan Wright & Victor J. Gold, Federal Practice & Procedure § 6203 (2d ed.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook. Second Edition
    • June 28, 2002
    ...to determine “inconsistency.” Udema v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 18 (1st Cir. 2001); United 32 Antitrust Evidence Handbook States v. Cody , 114 F.3d 772, 777 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Dennis , 625 F.2d 782, 795 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Morgan , 555 F.2d 238, 242 (9th Cir. 1977).......
  • Table of Authorities
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook. Second Edition
    • June 28, 2002
    ...v. Chestang , 849 F.2d 528 (11th Cir. 1988) ........................................................... 8, 9 United States v. Cody , 114 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 1997) ......................................................... 31, 32 United States v. Coleman , 631 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .............
  • Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...Cir. 2012) (refusal to answer questions posed and answered in prior sworn testimony qualifies as “inconsistent”); United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 777 (8th Cir. 1997) (trial court has broad discretion). Hearsay Issues Most Relevant in Antitrust Cases 11 (2) Inconsistency may be found in......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...Christ, 513 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008), 33 United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008), 10, 11 United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 1997), 10 United States v. Coleman, 631 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1980), 14 United States v. Collamore, 751 F. Supp. 1012 (D. Me. 1990),......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT