United States v. Hull, 17531.

Decision Date15 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 17531.,17531.
Citation441 F.2d 308
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. L. HULL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

James V. McGlone, Stuart, Branigin, Ricks & Schilling, Lafayette, Ind., for defendant-appellant.

Herbert Beigel, Chicago, Ill., William C. Lee, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee; Jeffrey Cole, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.

Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

KERNER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the jury conviction of defendant-appellant, J. L. Hull, for second degree murder, a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1111, since the victim was an agent for the Bureau of Narcotics of the United States Treasury Department. Hull was tried with his half-brother, B. Ellis Robinson, who pled guilty during the trial and is not involved in this appeal.

Defendant's major contention for reversal concerns the legality of his pre-indictment custody and interrogation by federal agents and Indiana police, which began at midnight on December 20, 1967, and ended when he was brought before a United States Commissioner for arraignment at 3:00 o'clock the following afternoon. A pre-trial suppression hearing was held, and the district court judge ruled that the evidence of defendant's confession, elicited from the interrogation, and other evidence discovered as a result of the confession would be admissible at trial.

Specifically the defendant claims that his confession was involuntary and consequently inadmissible at trial.

We must decide whether Hull's confession, in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the December 20 custodial interrogation, was the product of his free choice, Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961). If he confessed because his will was overborne by the interrogation and if he would have remained silent but for the improper influences on him, then we must hold his confession involuntary. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). Admittedly, this determination is a difficult one since it involves a consideration of both the propriety of the officers' conduct and its psychological effect on the mind and will of the accused. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963).

In order to evaluate fully the effect of the custodial interrogation on the defendant, we must consider these facts: J. L. Hull is a 34 year old Negro who is mentally defective. His full-scale I. Q. is 54, and he has the mental age of an eight or nine year old child. He completed the third grade in school and is illiterate. Psychiatric experts termed him passive and easily led by a more dominant personality. Hull can follow instructions if they are repeated or paraphrased for him several times; otherwise he has a tendency to lose his attention and comprehension.

With this in mind, we turn to the events of December 19 and 20, 1967. On the evening of December 19, federal narcotics agents, Robert Bottorff and Mansel Burrell, were investigating Hull's half-brother, Robinson, for a possible narcotics violation. Burrell, the deceased, was acting as an undercover agent and had arranged an appointment with Robinson for a buy of narcotics. Before the contact was made that evening, Bottorff recorded the numbers of the currency Burrell was to use for the buy.

At 8:30 p. m., Bottorff, accompanied by another federal agent and two Gary, Indiana, policemen, observed Burrell enter Robinson's apartment. At 9:15 p. m., Burrell was seen leaving the apartment building, followed by Robinson and an unidentified man. Burrell started his government car, and the two other men entered a Pontiac automobile. Bottorff followed the Pontiac and noticed Burrell closely behind him, but lost both cars in traffic. Fifteen minutes later, Bottorff found Burrell's car parked in the alley near Robinson's apartment.

After surveilling Burrell's car for nearly two hours, Bottorff's companions returned to Gary Police Headquarters. At 11:30 p. m., Bottorff, observing Hull enter and start Burrell's car, pursued him and managed to stop him within a few blocks. Hull got out of Burrell's car and was moving away from the scene. Bottorff, believing the defendant to be in possession of a government car without authorization, identified himself and ordered him to stop at the point of a gun.

While Bottorff was searching him, Hull lunged for the gun and Bottorff hit him in the face and subdued him. Hull's face was bleeding. Bottorff continued the search and removed from Hull's pocket currency wrapped in a handkerchief. There were red stains on the money, and some of the numbers on the currency matched those which Bottorff had recorded from Burrell.

At 12:00 o'clock midnight Hull was booked at headquarters and taken to an interrogation room where Bottorff and three others were waiting for him. Bottorff's version of the interrogation is that within a few minutes Hull confessed that he saw Robinson shoot Burrell two to four times in the head and helped Robinson dump the body somewhere in Illinois. Bottorff testified that he read Hull his Miranda warnings and Hull then confessed, stating that he "just wanted to get it off his * * * chest." The district court found Bottorff's testimony lacking in credibility and believed that Hull did not confess to Bottorff and, in fact, constantly denied his guilt for many hours after Bottorff's questioning.

The district court's finding that Bottorff did not receive a confession from Hull before 12:30 a. m., is buttressed by the fact that Hull was continually confronted with questions from relays of interrogators and he adamantly denied involvement with Burrell. Many of the officers did not know as late as 3:00 a. m., that anything unusual had happened to Burrell. If Bottorff elicited an early confession from Hull, he would not have then embarked on the rudimentary investigation he subsequently conducted. It was not until 3:00 a. m., when the officers found a large quantity of blood in the trunk of the Pontiac which Bottoroff had followed earlier in the evening, that many suspected that there was foul play involved.

Meanwhile, the questioning of Hull continued. Many testified that officers individually and in teams questioned Hull during the night and through the following morning. There was a great deal of shuffling in and out of the interrogation room. Officer George Lowe, who questioned Hull alone and with another officer said that the questioning was vigorous and that Hull was upset. After 3:00 a. m., Hull was confronted by Officer James Hilton with the evidence of the blood. Hull continued in his denials and shrugged his shoulders.

Agents Carroll Gibson and Kenneth Rhodes, who extracted a statement from Hull, arrived at headquarters at 3:00 a. m. At 4:30 a. m., they began their questioning; other officers were present. Prior to questioning, Gibson advised Hull of his constitutional rights. Five minutes later, Hull signed a waiver of rights form.

At trial, Gibson told of the subsequent interrogation:

I remember when I first started questioning him, I was asking him about the car, and he would — he was telling me that he was in — well, he would sell parts off of cars and somebody told him that there was a car, and if he wanted the tires off of it, he could get the tires off of the car and sell them; and in doing this, I banged on the table and I told him, "I don\'t want to hear that because I don\'t believe that."
He was just going to steal — take a car because somebody told me and then he would tell me that he is telling the truth, and I jumped up and pushed the chair and said, "I don\'t want to hear that. I want the truth, because you are wasting time. I want to find the boy."
Then, he told me another story * * and we went through that and by the time that I was standing there — I was standing up and I said — I probably got up and pushed the chair, and I remember on one occasion we got to discussing the fact about he heard a rumor where the body might be, and I was asking him if he did — did he know, and he turned around and he pounded on the wall and told me, "I don\'t know, I don\'t know," and we had quite a lot of confusion in the room at the time.

A number of officers testified that Hull was crying during the questioning. Gibson stated that Hull was "very emotionally upset * * *" and "very nervous."

The interrogation leading up to the confession continued. Gibson stated that he told Hull:

That I was not too interested in what had occurred, but I was interested in finding Burrell, because I was very concerned about his well being, and I had tried to explain to him the importance of him telling me where Burrell was, because if he was hurt, I wanted to get him in time to get him to a doctor.
I further explained to him, also, that I wasn\'t too concerned what had taken place, but if Burrell was hurt, and he was involved, and if I could get to him in time, the best that we might have on our hands is an assault rather than anything serious.
And then, he explained to me what he said that took place, and we went on, and I further stated that in — more or less pleading and begging him to — if he could recall, to tell me where I could find Burrell, and then, he discussed in his version what had taken place, and I also asked him if he didn\'t have anything to do with it, perhaps, he has heard something on the street being in a position where he knew people and, you know, knew what was going on, that could assist me in finding Burrell, because I was really concerned about Burrell, because he was a personal friend of mine.

Within a half hour, Hull told the officers that he saw Robinson shoot Burrell and helped him dispose of the body in Illinois. Hull thought Burrell was dead because he had been shot in the head. Gibson told him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Johnson v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • January 31, 1979
    ...any of the grisly circumstances present in other confession cases involving persons of low intelligence. See, e. g., United States v. Hull, 441 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1971) (confession was involuntary when made by defendant who had mental age of an 8 or 9 year-old and who was interrogated by re......
  • United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 21, 1972
    ...was overborne by the interrogation and if he would have remained silent but for the improper influences on him," United States v. Hull, 441 F.2d 308, 309 (7th Cir. 1971), his confession must be held involuntary. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). The Sup......
  • Com. v. Davis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1980
    ...1541, 1546, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 153, 64 S.Ct. 921, 925, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944); United States v. Hull, 441 F.2d 308, 313 (7th Cir. 1971). The motion judge hearing the tapes described the interview as logical and orderly, free of hostility, coercion, or t......
  • U.S. v. Harrelson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 15, 1985
    ...States v. Rivera, 513 F.2d 519, 521 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 367, 46 L.Ed.2d 284 (1975); United States v. Hull, 441 F.2d 308, 309 (7th Cir.1971). Chagra's own indictment belies the government's position; it charges her with conspiracy to kill Judge Wood "with prem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966). A continuous interrogation of nearly twelve hours was held involuntary in United States v. Hull , 441 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1971). In a contemporary juvenile case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suppressed a confession as involuntary when among other fa......
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966). A continuous interrogation of nearly twelve hours was held involuntary in United States v. Hull , 441 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1971). In a contemporary juvenile case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suppressed a confession as involuntary when among other fa......
  • Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • August 4, 2016
    ...v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966). A continuous interrogation of nearly twelve hours was held involuntary in United States v. Hull , 441 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1971). In a contemporary juvenile case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suppressed a confession as involuntary when among other fa......
  • Suppressing Involuntary Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • August 4, 2017
    ...v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966). A continuous interrogation of nearly twelve hours was held involuntary in United States v. Hull , 441 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1971). In a contemporary juvenile case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suppressed a confession as involuntary when among other fa......

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