United States v. Traficant, Crim. A. No. CR82-148Y.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. CR82-148Y. |
| Citation | 558 F. Supp. 993 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. James A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Stephen H. Jigger, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Mark Gervelis, Ashtabula, Ohio, Michael S. Harshman, Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant.
Pending before the Court is defendant Traficant's Motion to Suppress Written and Oral Statements. For the reasons set forth below, Traficant's motion is denied.
Traficant, the present Sheriff of Mahoning County, is charged with accepting bribes from Charles and Orland Carrabia, James Prato and Joseph Naples, Jr., in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Evidence in this case includes tape recordings of conversations between Traficant and the Carrabias in which they discuss the money allegedly exchanged between them and between Traficant and Prato. These tapes, which were the subject of a separate motion to suppress, will be introduced at trial. The statements, which are the subject of the instant Motion to Suppress, were given to the FBI by Traficant at a series of meetings, beginning on June 15, 1981, subsequent to the FBI's acquisition of the tapes. Traficant claims these statements were involuntarily given and were extracted from him by agents of the FBI in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
The facts surrounding the meetings are important for full comprehension of the basis of Traficant's motion. A lengthy suppression hearing was held to ascertain the salient facts. Those testifying were three FBI special agents, and the Cleveland Strike Force Attorney-in-Charge. No testimony was offered by the defendant.
At Traficant's first meeting with the FBI agents on June 15, 1981, which he attended voluntarily and at the agents' request, he gave the Signed Statement he now seeks to suppress. The meeting took place at the FBI offices in Youngstown. Traficant was not in custody during the interview, nor was he ever restrained from leaving, or denied access to a telephone. Nor was he denied an opportunity to talk to a lawyer. There is no evidence that Traficant ever even made such a request, although more than one FBI agent testified that Traficant asked the agents if they thought he needed an attorney. It is undisputed that he was not given Miranda warnings. This Court finds credible the FBI agents' testimony that, even with the tapes, the government did not have probable cause to arrest Traficant when the meeting was called.
After Traficant denied that he knew or had ever met with the Carrabias, the FBI agents played a short portion of the recorded conversations between Traficant and the Carrabias. A statement, drafted in long-hand by one of the FBI agents, was presented to Traficant. Briefly summarized, it stated that Traficant admitted accepting money from the Carrabias, Prato and Naples, in exchange for allowing illegal activities to take place in Mahoning County. Traficant immediately denounced the writing as "not true", and refused to sign. When questioned by the FBI agents regarding the inaccuracies, and after an offer was made to correct any inaccuracies, Traficant changed his position and signed what is now the challenged Signed Statement.1 During the meeting, an FBI special agent discussed possible immunity for Traficant in exchange for his "one hundred percent cooperation" with the FBI in its investigation of the Carrabias, Prato and Naples, and the "source of the political corruption in Mahoning County". This Court specifically finds that no FBI agent ever made an absolute promise of immunity to Traficant. The meeting ended shortly after Traficant signed the Statement.
At least six meetings between Traficant and various FBI agents followed. The next meeting was also held at the FBI offices. Again, Traficant attended voluntarily. The third meeting was requested by Traficant. Subsequent meetings occurred at an apartment in Youngstown, instead of the FBI offices. Testimony established that Traficant arrived at all meetings alone and in an automobile he drove himself. No evidence of coercion or involuntariness with respect to Traficant's attendance at the meetings was so much as even suggested by the testimony. Likewise, there is no evidence that Traficant was ever restrained, threatened, beaten, or otherwise forced to make any of the statements given the FBI agents during these meetings.
Discussions at the meetings centered primarily on the FBI's efforts to convince Traficant to wear a body microphone and recorder while meeting with individuals the FBI wished to investigate, specifically Charles Onesti and Prato. The recorded conversations between Traficant and the Carrabias revealed that Onesti had allegedly delivered money to Traficant from Prato. Traficant refused the FBI agents' requests to wear a body mike because he feared for his safety and he wanted to protect Onesti, whom Traficant believed was not criminally culpable. During the course of these meetings, Traficant made more admissions to the FBI agents regarding his receipt of money during his campaign for Sheriff. The last meeting was on August 3, 1981 when the FBI, having decided that Traficant was not cooperating "one hundred percent", served Traficant with a subpoena.
It is well-settled law that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is undisputed that Traficant was not given warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, supra. However, the key to the Miranda requirement is the custodial nature of the questioning. See, Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 346, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 1616, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976). There is ample testimony to support this Court's finding that Traficant was never in custody when he made admissions to the FBI agents. His attendance at all the meetings was voluntary and he was never restrained from leaving. Miranda warnings were not required under the circumstances, and Traficant's statements were not procured in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The totality of the circumstances must be considered when determining the voluntariness of a confession. United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 546 (6th Cir.1977). Both the physical conditions surrounding the confession and the psychological impact of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Murtha
...accord, Traficant v. C.I.R., supra, 884 F.2d at p. 266; U.S. v. Nietupski (C.D.Ill.1990) 731 F.Supp. 881, 884; United States v. Traficant (N.D.Ohio 1983) 558 F.Supp. 993, 1002.) b. Since our Supreme Court decided People v. May (1988) 44 Cal.3d 309, 315, 243 Cal.Rptr. 369, 748 P.2d 307, it h......
-
Dunn v. State
...Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007, 1012 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982); United States v. Traficant, 558 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D.Ohio 1983). In the instant case, no "judicial proceeding" of any kind had been instituted by the police against appellant, thu......
-
Fuentes v. Moran
...Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007, 1012 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982); United States v. Traficant, 558 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D.Ohio 1983). Given the circumstances and timing of Fuentes's confession, his Sixth Amendment guarantees had not yet ripened to ......
-
Jarrell v. Balkcom
...455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982); Fuentes v. Moran, 572 F.Supp. 1461, 1467-68 (D.R.I.1983); United States v. Traficant, 558 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D.Ohio 1983). See also United States ex rel. Johnson v. Lane, 573 F.Supp. 967, 970 (N.D.Ill.1983) (in Illinois, "adversary judic......