United States v. Hunter

Decision Date14 December 2012
Docket NumberCriminal No. 1:12–cr–62.
Citation912 F.Supp.2d 388
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Amy HUNTER, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Patricia M. Haynes, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, for United States of America.

Geremy C. Kamens, Office of Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANTHONY J. TRENGA, District Judge.

I. Overview

On April 26, 2011, a nine month old child, referred to in this case as C.P., was taken to the hospital with injuries later determined to have resulted from “shaken-baby” syndrome. She died from those injuries on April 28, 2011. At the time C.P. was injured she was in the custody of defendant Amy Hunter (“Hunter” or “Ms. Hunter”), who was providing child care at her residence at the Quantico Marine Base in Quantico, Virginia. On October 17, 2011, Hunter was arrested for murder in the second degree for the death of C.P. Arrest Warrant, Doc. No. 5.

On February 14, 2012, the defendant was indicted for death eligible, first degree murder [Doc. No. 21]. On May 18, 2012, the Court was advised that the Department of Justice had decided not to seek the death penalty [Doc. No. 31]. On October 4, 2012, a superseding indictment was returned charging the defendant with (1) first degree murder; (2) second degree murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) & (b); and (3) abuse and neglect of children, VA Code 18.2–371.1 [Doc. No. 49]. On October 4, 2012, the government voluntarily dismissed count 1, charging first degree murder.

In response to the original indictment the defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements [Doc. No. 33] on August 3, 2012, and a Supplemental Motion to Exclude Defendant's Statements [Doc. No. 46] on September 24, 2012 (collectively referred to as the “Motions”). Included as exhibits to the Motions are video recordings of the defendant's interview on April 27, 2012, with Special Agent Andrea David of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (“NCIS”) at Quantico, and also the defendant's re-enactment of how C.P. was injured, performed in her home on April 27, 2012, at the request of Agent David. The Motions were effectively renewed following the issuance of the superseding indictment. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motions on October 11, 2012, following which the Court took the Motions under advisement.

Defendant's Motions seek to suppress her statements made at the NCIS office on April 27, 2011, on the grounds that they were made in the absence of Miranda warnings and were not voluntary, both in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that any probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In addition, the defendant seeks to suppress the video recorded re-enactment of the incident, principally pursuant to Rule 403 on the grounds that any probative value of the re-enactment is outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect. Upon consideration of the Motions, the memoranda and exhibits in support thereof, and the government's oppositions thereto [Doc. Nos. 35 & 47], as well as the testimony, evidence, and arguments made and presented during the October 11, 2012, hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motions as to the video recorded and written statement given at the NCIS office on April 27, 2011, and GRANTS the Motions as to the video re-enactment.

II. FACTS1

On the morning of April 26, 2011, Defendant Hunter called 911 requesting help for C.P. because, according to the defendant, the infant had fallen, knocked her head against a chair rail, and was unconscious. Mot. to Suppress Hr'g Tr. (“Hr'g Tr.”) 10:23–11:3, Oct. 11, 2012, Doc. No. 70. The case was assigned that day to Special Agent David.

Accompanied by Child Protective Services (“CPS”) Investigator Matt Hampton, Agent David went to the defendant's home to discuss the incident that had occurred that morning. When they arrived at the house, Agent David introduced herself and with the defendant's permission she and Investigator Hampton conducted a forty minute interview. At the end of the conversation, Agent David and Investigator Hampton left the defendant's home withoutmaking any accusations or placing any restrictions on her.

Agent David spent much of the following day, April 27, 2011, communicating with personnel at the hospital, including a child abuse expert that the hospital had brought into the case to determine the extent and possible causes of C.P.'s injuries. Through these conversations Agent David learned that C.P. had multiple skull fractures caused by repetitive head injury, consistent with a shaken baby, and a rib fracture that was approximately three weeks old. She also interviewed the defendant's husband, Michael Hunter, a member of the U.S. Marine Corps on active duty at Quantico.

Later that day, Agent David spoke with an Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) for the Eastern District of Virginia to inform that office of what she had learned about the likely source of C.P.'s injuries and her intention to question the defendant a second time. Agent David also discussed how she should proceed with her interview, including whether she needed to give Miranda warnings to the defendant. During this conversation, Agent David told the AUSA that she did not believe the defendant's story about how C.P.'s injuries occurred and that she suspected that Hunter was responsible for those injuries. The AUSA told Agent David that her follow-up interview with Hunter was “to be made completely voluntary.” Hr'g Tr. 20:14–16. Agent David was instructed not to arrest Hunter and that no matter what Hunter said during the follow-up interview she was to be released once the interview concluded. With respect to Miranda warnings, Agent David was told that she did not need to read Hunter her rights “as long as it was clear to her from the onset that she was there of her own volition and that no matter what she said, I [Agent David] was releasing her to her own recognizance afterwards.” Id. at 49:15–18. In addition, Agent David had been told by her “management team” to do a full search of the Hunter residence and was therefore working on getting permission from the base commanding officer to search the Hunters' home.

Around 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. on April 27, 2011, Agent David called Hunter and asked if she would be willing to come to the NCIS office to talk to her (Agent David). According to Agent David, she proposed that the interview take place at her office (without telling Hunter why) in order to more easily facilitate the preparation of a written statement, should Hunter be willing to provide one, and also to videotape the interview in accordance with the “standard protocol for any violent crimes.” Id. at 21:5. In response to this request, Hunter agreed to come to the NCIS office, but said that she was busy at that moment and she would come down as soon as she could.

Hunter arrived at the NCIS office around 8:10 p.m. and was accompanied by her husband, Michael. The Hunters waited in the NCIS office lobby for approximately twenty minutes until Agent David met with them. Before taking Hunter to the interview room, Agent David asked if she could speak with Hunter outside the presence of her husband. After the Hunters agreed, Agent David escorted Ms. Hunter to the interview room. While waiting in the lobby, the Hunters would likely not have seen any agents in uniform or carrying any weapons.

Upon entering the interview room, Agent David asked Ms. Hunter if she was physically comfortable where she was seated, thanked her for coming in, and told her that “you don't have to be here if you don't want to, but we do have some follow-up questions that we'd like to get from you, if that's all right?” Draft Tr. of Interrogation (“Draft Tr.”) 2:3–7, April 27, 2011. Hunter did not verbally respond, but appeared calm and affirmatively nodded her head. Before beginning the interview, Agent David did not ask Ms. Hunter to give up her cell phone or any other personal belongings. During the interview, Agent David was not in a uniform and was not carrying a weapon.

Agent David began the interview by informing Hunter that C.P. “may be brain-dead or on her way to being brain-dead.” Id. at 2:11–12. She also told Hunter that a child abuse expert who had evaluated C.P. said that a fall could not have caused such serious injuries, but rather, C.P. was probably shaken right before she lost consciousness. Id. at 2:13–21. Almost immediately, Hunter became visibly upset and began affirmatively nodding her head in response to Agent David's statement that she and Investigator Hampton needed to speak with Hunter to find out exactly what happened.

For the first few minutes of the interview, Hunter continued to repeat the sequence of events that she had previously told Agent David and Investigator Hampton, but shortly thereafter admitted she had lied about C.P.'s hitting her head on a chair rail, now claiming that C.P. had hit her head by falling down the stairs. Id. at 3:3–5:23. Approximately seventeen minutes into the interview Agent David excused herself but just before leaving the room with Investigator Hampton, Hunter asked if she could see her husband. Agent David responded “can you give us just a second? Do you mind?” and Hunter can be seen affirmatively nodding her head. Video Recording of the Interrogation (“Video”) 20:49, April 27, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hunter entered the room, took the defendant's hand and told her to calm down, and began asking her what happened. Video 20:53. When Ms. Hunter said she did not know how many stairs Chelsea had climbed before she fell because she (Ms. Hunter) was in the bathroom, Mr. Hunter turned and looked at Agent David and said “that would explain the higher fall, definitely[,] and Agent David agreed that this was “a much better version of events.” Video 20:54. Mr. Hunter then said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Tangtong, Criminal No. 7:18-cr-0002
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 27 Noviembre 2018
    ...to obtain incriminating statements without signaling to the defendant the seriousness of her situation or the jeopardy she faced." 912 F. Supp. 2d 388, 397-98 (E.D. Va. 2012). The investigating officer in Hunter did not inform the defendant, who was in her early twenties, that she had acqui......
  • Ladner v. Pate
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 26 Enero 2015
    ...of the accused and the details of the interrogation." Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434; see also United States v. Hunter, 912 F. Supp. 2d 388, 394 (E.D. Va. 2012) ("Whether statements were unconstitutionally obtained is a mixed question of law and fact properly disposed of by t......
  • United States v. Amri
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 31 Julio 2017
    ...of [the defendant's] conduct and how it would be viewed by others" that does not establish coercion. See United States v. Hunter, 912 F. Supp. 2d 388, 401 (E.D. Va. 2012). Amri further argues that the agents engaged in impermissible economic coercion by threatening to deprive him of the use......

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