United States v. Brown, Crim. No. 74-81692.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 74-81692. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Hayward Leslie BROWN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Ralph B. Guy, U. S. Atty. by Gordon S. Gold, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Sheldon Halpern, Kenneth Mogill, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
Defendant has moved to suppress any oral admissions made subsequent to his arrest on January 12, 1974. He claims, first, that no such admissions were in fact made by him and, second, that if they were made they should be suppressed because of violation of his Constitutional rights.
Defendant further urges that The Honorable Samuel C. Gardner, a judge of the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, has previously ruled that these oral admissions should be suppressed and that this Court is bound by Judge Gardner's decision. As the Court held at an earlier hearing on this motion, it is required to make an independent review of the matter; it is required to hear evidence and make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-24, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); United States v. Beigel, 370 F.2d 751, 756 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 930, 87 S.Ct. 2049, 18 L.Ed.2d 989 (1967). Indeed, some of the evidence presented to the Court was not presented to Judge Gardner.
The Court has now heard the evidence presented by the Government in support of its contention that oral admissions made shortly after defendant's arrest and while he was in the police car being conveyed to police headquarters were voluntary, and the defendant's evidence, both of his witnesses and by way of cross-examination of the Government's witnesses, as well as exhibits, that these admissions were not voluntary and that they were not even made. There has been some reference in the testimony to a later statement made at police headquarters but the Government states it does not intend to offer that and the Court makes no finding as to its voluntariness.
Four persons were present in the police car which conveyed defendant from the place of his arrest on Trumbull south of Warren in the City of Detroit, to police headquarters at 1300 Beaubien in downtown Detroit. They were police officers Ciaglo and Gilbeau, police sergeant Studer and defendant. All four have testified.
Sergeant Roger Studer testified that he responded to Trumbull and Warren after hearing a radio message that a man wanted for shooting at Wayne State University police officers was in custody. When Sergeant Studer arrived, defendant was already seated in the police car. An Inspector Bensmiller directed Studer to accompany defendant to police headquarters. Sergeant Studer described defendant as handcuffed, breathing heavily, perspiring profusely and having an abrasion on his right cheek, with slight bleeding, but no other visible injury. Studer entered the police car which almost immediately left the scene. He testified that he first asked defendant what happened to his face. To this, he testified, defendant replied that he fell in an alley while running from the police. He testified that defendant did not complain of any injuries and received no injuries while in the police car; that he did not complain of pain; and did not ask for medical attention. Studer further testified that shortly after he entered the police car defendant said, "Don't let them beat me, Sarge," to which Studer replied, "No one is going to hit you."
Sergeant Studer asked defendant his name, to which defendant replied Hayward Leslie Brown and volunteered, "I'll tell you everything you want to know." Studer then gave defendant his Miranda warning or advice of Constitutional rights. Defendant stated, according to Sergeant Studer, that Studer did not need to give him his advice of rights since he, defendant, knew them.
Sergeant Studer testified that defendant then told him that he and one Bethune had just fire-bombed a place on Woodward, that they were running from the police and that Bethune had shot at the police but that he, Brown, had never shot anyone; that Bethune shot the STRESS officers.
Sergeant Studer testified he asked Brown why they had fire-bombed the place on Woodward and that Brown replied, "We wanted to get something started like down in New Orleans, to free the people."
Sergeant Studer asked Mr. Brown where Bethune was and was told that he was staying out on Schaefer but that defendant did not know the cross street. Studer testified that defendant was excited and nervous, that he was breathing heavily, and that he thrashed around in the police car, throwing his shoulders around from time to time.
Sergeant Studer further testified that at about the same time defendant told him his name he, Studer, thought, "I've seen him before." (Defendant, Bethune and one Boyd had been the subjects of a massive manhunt following the shooting of police officers in December of 1972.)
Officer David Gilbeau was seated on the other side of defendant in the rear of the scout car. He testified that defendant had a scrape on his cheek or forehead with slight bleeding, that he was sweating and somewhat nervous. He testified that when someone asked defendant his name that defendant said Hayward Brown. Gilbeau looked at the flyer in the police car and noted it was quite different from defendant's actual appearance because his face was fuller. Gilbeau's recollection of the admission was not as complete as Studer's but he did recall Mr. Brown's saying that Boyd and Bethune shot the STRESS officers and that he, Brown, had nothing to do with it. He recalled Mr. Brown's saying that Boyd was staying someplace on the west side. He recalled Sergeant Studer's giving defendant his advice of rights and defendant interrupting. He also recalled the remark about the bombing being done to "free the people like in New Orleans."
Officer Gilbeau testified that while in the police car he struck defendant once in the face with his open hand to get defendant to be still. He testified defendant was sitting forward, screaming, and Gilbeau wanted to hear what was being said on the police radio. He did not believe Sergeant Studer saw this occur. He further testified that this slap did not leave any mark on defendant's face and that defendant at no time complained of being in pain.
The third officer in the police car was Ciaglo who was driving. The driver's seat was separated from the rear seat by a plastic, bullet-proof shield which made it difficult for him to hear what was occurring in the back seat, although the porthole in the glass was open. He testified that he was not aware of defendant's identity until defendant told him his name. He testified that defendant's picture in the "Wanted" circular was not a good likeness of his appearance. Ciaglo testified that defendant had an abrasion on the right side of his face, which he had had prior to his arrest and that this was the only visible injury; that defendant was breathing heavily and sweating, and that he heard defendant say something about being involved in the bombing of a Big Boy Restaurant. He further testified that he was one of two officers who had helped defendant to the scout car and that defendant entered under his own power.
Defendant also testified to the events in the police car. He denied making any statements whatsoever about any fire-bombing and denied even knowing about the events in New Orleans until long after his arrest. He admitted that he was given his advice of rights and that he was fully aware of his right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, etc. He testified that he did give the sergeant his name and address and that he may have told him that Boyd and Bethune were staying on Schaefer. He denied ever having said that he got the scrape or abrasion on his right cheek from falling in an alley, although he admitted he had been running from the police. He had been, he said, in the vicinity of the Big Boy Restaurant and the Planned Parenthood office when the bombing occurred and when he learned of it, he "split." He admitted having fired at Wayne State University police officers at two locations and to having run a long distance. He testified that he was never unconscious during the ride down-town and that there was no period of time for which he could not account. He also described this period as a period of rest. He denied saying that he would tell the officer in the police car "anything you want to know." He testified that during the trip from the scene of the arrest to the police station he was punched and struck both in the body and about the face and head, several times by each of the officers in the rear of the scout car.
Mr. Brown further testified that before being placed in the scout car he had been repeatedly beaten, kicked, struck with flashlights and rifle butts while being arrested. He testified that he was walking on Trumbull just south of Warren when he was ordered to halt; that he in no way resisted arrest and that while his hands were in the air he was thrown to the ground and subjected to the foregoing by several police officers. He testified that he was dragged from the sidewalk where he was arrested to the police car. He testified he was struck again several times at the police garage after arriving at police headquarters and received further blows, including a kick in the face, while being interrogated at headquarters. He also testified that at police headquarters a police officer deliberately burned the upper surface of one of his hands, singeing the hair.
Mr. Brown acknowledged that although he was examined by two doctors that same evening he made no complaint to them about any injuries below the neck except for a minor cut on one wrist and the area on the hand where the hair was singed. Moreover, although he testified that the blows he received...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Morris, Crim. No. 180-31
...99 S.Ct. 132, 58 L.Ed.2d 139 (1978) and his perception that FBI agents were "not smiling and looked mean", see United States v. Brown, 436 F.Supp. 998, 1004 (E.D.Mich.1977), do not establish involuntariness. Nor does the oral rather than written nature of the statement, in itself, render th......