U.S. v. Jefferson

• Decision Date: 23 June 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1:07cr209.,1:07cr209.
• Citation: 562 F.Supp.2d 707
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. William J. JEFFERSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

562 F.Supp.2d 707

UNITED STATES of America v. William J. JEFFERSON, Defendant.

No. 1:07cr209.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

June 23, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark Lytle, Rebeca H. Bellows, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, Charles E. Duross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Amy Berman Jackson, Robert Powel Trout, Gloria B. Solomon, Trout Cacheris PLLC, Washington, DC, for William J. Jefferson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge.

A sixteen-count indictment (the "Indictment") charges defendant William J. Jefferson, a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives, with a variety of crimes including bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, foreign corrupt practices, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and racketeering. Defendant has moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers during an interview conducted at defendant's residence on the morning of August 3, 2005.¹ He contends he was questioned in conditions that restrained his freedom to the degree associated with a formal arrest, and that the law enforcement officers' failure to appraise him of his Constitutional rights render his statements inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

The facts pertinent to the suppression motion were adduced in the course of an evidentiary hearing² at which three FBI agent testified on behalf of the government: Special Agent in Charge (SAC) James Bernazzani, and Special Agents Daniel H. Evans and Timothy R. Thibault. Defendant testified on his own behalf. The resulting factual findings are set forth herein pursuant to Rule 12(d), Fed.R.Civ. P., together with the legal reasons that compel the conclusion that defendant was not in custody and accordingly that his statements to Agents Thibault and Evans are not subject to the Miranda exclusionary rule.

I.

Defendant is the currently sitting member of the United States House of Representatives representing Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District, an office he has held since 1991. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for the late United States District Judge Ah/in B. Rubin. Prior to his election to Congress he was a member of the Louisiana state senate, and following his election to Congress he earned a graduate law degree in tax law from the Georgetown University Law Center.

The Indictment alleges that beginning in or about January 2001, defendant used his office to advance the business interests of various individuals and corporations in return for money and other things of value paid either directly to defendant or via `nominee companies,' i.e., companies ostensibly controlled by one of defendant's family members, but in fact controlled by defendant himself. The specific schemes alleged in the Indictment are described in greater detail in an earlier Memorandum Opinion. See United States v. Jefferson, 534 F.Supp.2d 645 (E.D.Va.2008).

As part of the investigation leading to the Indictment in this case, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) went to defendant's residence at 1922 Marengo Street in New Orleans, Louisiana on the morning of August 3, 2005 to execute a search warrant and to interview defendant, if he consented. At approximately seven o'clock that morning, SAC Bernazzani and Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Howard Schwartz approached defendant's residence and knocked on the door. Although SAC Bernazzani did not plan to participate in either the search or the interview, he decided it would be appropriate for him to initiate contact with defendant that morning because he had previously met defendant at the time Bernazzani became SAC of the FBI's New Orleans field office. Bernazzani believed his presence would reassure defendant that the individuals coming to his house that morning were in fact FBI agents. When defendant answered the door, SAC Bernazzani introduced himself and told defendant that Agents Thibault and Evans, who were then waiting in a car parked on the street, wished to ask defendant some questions. Defendant agreed to meet with the agents and answer their questions, at which point ASAC Schwartz signaled Thibault and Evans to approach the residence. All four agents were in plain clothes, and although they were carrying firearms at the time, their firearms were holstered and concealed and remained so for the entire interview.

At defendant's invitation, Agents Bernazzani, Schwartz, Thibault, and Evans entered defendant's residence. Defendant led Agents Thibault and Evans into a sitting room, leaving SAC Bernazzani and ASAC Schwartz in a foyer by the front door of the residence. SAC Bernazzani remained by the front door for approximately a minute, and then departed the residence and returned to his office; ASAC Schwartz departed the residence some time shortly thereafter, but remained nearby.

Agents Thibault and Evans seated themselves in defendant's sitting room, and while defendant did not tell them where to sit, he testified he had no problem with the seats they chose. After introducing themselves, the agents proceeded to question defendant for approximately two hours. The questioning related to an ongoing FBI investigation into allegations made by Lori Mody, a Virginia businesswoman, who claimed that defendant had solicited bribes from her in return for promoting Mody's business interests in Africa. The government contends that during the interview defendant made a number of inculpatory statements and admissions to the agents.³

At some point during the interview, defendant stood up and indicated that he needed to use the bathroom.⁴ Agent Evans stated that he followed defendant to the bathroom as a routine and precautionary measure to ensure agent safety and the integrity of the anticipated search. The parties dispute what happened next: Defendant claims that Agent Evans followed him into the bathroom and watched while he urinated, while Agent Evans maintains that he remained outside the bathroom. It is not surprising that defendant and Evans recall the events differently more than two years after the fact. In any event, the more convincing account is that given by Agent Evans. At most, the door to the bathroom remained partially ajar while defendant was inside, but taken as a whole the evidence shows that Evans did not enter the bathroom or watch defendant urinate. When defendant had finished using the bathroom, Evans accompanied him back to the sitting room.

Approximately two hours after the interview began, Agent Thibault asked defendant about money allegedly given to him by Lori Mody, the Virginia businesswoman whose allegations had prompted the FBI investigation and who had become a cooperating witness. At that point defendant said that he wished to terminate the interview. The agents complied with this request and immediately stopped asking defendant questions related to their investigation. From that point on defendant was not asked and did not answer any further questions.⁵ The agents did ask defendant whether he would watch a video which they had brought with them, and defendant said he would. The agents then played a video allegedly showing defendant receiving money from Mody.

After viewing the video, defendant volunteered a number of further statements which the government contends are inculpatory. According to Agent Evans, defendant slumped back into his seat and said "what a waste"; defendant says he merely commented "what a waste of time."⁶ Agent Thibault testified that defendant then asked what he ought to do, and Thibault advised him that he ought to cooperate with the FBI's investigations.⁷ Thibault informed defendant that the FBI had a warrant to search his residence and that they intended to execute the search immediately, and defendant went to wake his family and inform them of the search.

Defendant now seeks to suppress all statements he made to Agents Thibault and Evans during the course of the two hour interview, both before and after he told the agents that he wished to terminate the questioning. Defendant argues that the objective circumstances of the interview demonstrate that he was in custody throughout, and that the agents' failure to appraise him of his Miranda rights renders his statements to them inadmissible. The government responds that Miranda does not apply because defendant was not in custody during the interview, and that his statements to Agents Thibault and Evans should be admissible.

II.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const, amend. V. To protect this right, the Supreme Court in Miranda adopted a series of procedural rules that must be followed during custodial interrogations. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is well settled that any statement elicited from a suspect in violation of these rules is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, although such statements may be admissible at trial for other purposes such as impeachment of a defendant's trial testimony. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). It is also settled that Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations, that is, interrogations conducted after a suspect has been formally arrested or "where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him `in custody.'" Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). It is undisputed here that the agents' interview with defendant constituted an interrogation. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) ("[T]he term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or...