United States v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 12 October 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-CR-00155 EAW
• Citation: 567 F.Supp.3d 398
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Deandre WILSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

567 F.Supp.3d 398

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Deandre WILSON, Defendant.

1:19-CR-00155 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed October 12, 2021

Brendan T. Cullinane, Government Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge

Currently pending before the undersigned is a motion to suppress filed by defendant Deandre Wilson ("Wilson"). (Dkt. 186; Dkt. 262). Wilson moves for suppression of a video statement he made to law enforcement on October 9, 2019. (Id. ). For the following reasons, Wilson's motion to suppress is denied.

BACKGROUND

Wilson, along with his co-defendants, is presently charged in a 24-count second superseding indictment arising out the alleged murders of three individuals on or about September 15, 2019, and subsequent destruction of their bodies. (Dkt. 106). Wilson is charged in many of the 24 counts: narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); Hobbs Act conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 8); Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 (Count 9); murder while engaged in a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 10); discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2 (Count 11); discharge of a firearm causing death in furtherance of a crime of violence and drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1) and 2 (Count 12 and Count 13); conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Count 14); obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1) and 2 (Count 15 and Count 16); conspiracy to use fire to commit a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(m) and 2 (Count 17); use of fire to commit a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(h) and 2 (Count 18 and Count 19); conspiracy to damage and destroy a vehicle used in interstate commerce by fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(n) and 2 (Count 20); damaging and destroying a vehicle used in interstate commerce by fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i) and 2 (Count 21); maintaining a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 23); and possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 24). (Id. ). Following his arrest on October 9, 2019, Wilson was questioned by law enforcement, resulting in a video-recorded oral statement. (Dkt. 186 at ¶¶ 156-57).

Wilson filed his motion to suppress on February 24, 2021, seeking suppression of his October 9, 2019 statement, including seeking a hearing "to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking of the said statement to determine whether it was obtained voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently pursuant to a proper waiver of Constitutional rights by Mr. Wilson." (Id. at ¶ 159). Wilson also submitted an affirmation in support of his motion to suppress, which states that on October 9, 2019, he was taken to Buffalo Police Headquarters where he was interrogated by two members of law enforcement, and that "[d]uring the time of [his] interrogation, the statements attributed to [him] were not freely and voluntarily given, in violation of [his] Constitutional rights." (Dkt. 197 at ¶¶ 3-5).

The government filed a response to Wilson's motion on April 30, 2021 (Dkt. 214), and Wilson filed reply papers on May 10, 2021 (Dkt. 222). The Court held oral argument on the pending pretrial motions on May 20, 2021. (Dkt. 229). On June 18, 2021, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Wilson's request for an evidentiary hearing but reserving on the issue of whether his statement should be suppressed. (Dkt. 242 at 36-40).¹ Thereafter, the Court received further submissions from Wilson as to his motion to suppress on July 6, 2021 (Dkt. 262), and from the government on August 20, 2021 (Dkt. 292).

DISCUSSION

In support of his motion to suppress his October 9, 2019 statement, Wilson argues that it was not given knowingly and voluntarily. (Dkt. 186 at 43-44). In his supplemental filing, Wilson highlights several portions of the videotaped statement, broken down by video segments one through four, that he contends render his statement not voluntary.² (See Dkt. 262 at 2-5).

"A confession is not voluntary when obtained under circumstances that overbear the defendant's will at the time it is given." United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15, 23 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In examining whether a statement was made voluntarily, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances in which it was given "to determine whether the government agents’ conduct ‘was such as to overbear [the defendant's] will to resist and bring about [statements] not freely self-determined.’ " United States v. Kaba, 999 F.2d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1993) (first alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Guarno, 819 F.2d 28, 30 (2d Cir. 1987) ). The totality of the circumstances include: "(1) the characteristics of the accused, (2) the conditions of the interrogation, and (3) the conduct of law enforcement officials." United States v. Awan, 384 F. App'x 9, 14 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 901-02 (2d Cir. 1988) ). "In general, a suspect who reads, acknowledges, and signs an ‘advice of rights’ form before making a statement has knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda rights." Taylor , 745 F.3d at 23 (citation omitted). However, even where a Miranda waiver is knowing and voluntary, the Court "must nonetheless determine whether the inculpatory statements themselves were voluntary." Id.

"It is difficult to determine whether a confession is voluntary; case law ‘yield[s] no talismanic definition’ for the term." Id. at 24. However, where circumstances suggest evidence of "brutality, [p]sychological duress, threats, [or] unduly prolonged interrogation," statements will be deemed involuntary.

United States v. Moore, 670 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir. 2012) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Verdugo, 617 F.3d 565, 575 (1st Cir. 2010) ). The government bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's statement was voluntary. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 n.1, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004).

At the direction of the Court, the government produced a copy of Wilson's videotaped statement for the Court's review. The Court has reviewed the videotaped statement, including the portions of the interview highlighted by Wilson, most of which are relevant to the Court's consideration of the conduct of the officers. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the government has sustained its burden of showing that Wilson's statement was voluntary, and therefore suppression is not required.

The interview of Wilson was conducted by two law enforcement officers, including a detective from Buffalo Police Homicide and FBI Special Agent Clinton Winters. At the beginning of the interview, Wilson was read his Miranda warnings and initialed a form confirming that he received and understood the warnings. Some portions of the video highlighted by Wilson concern the officers’ statements indicating they believed that Wilson was a "casualty of war" and pulled into Cobb's unlawful activities, or concern the officers confronting Wilson with evidence they had as to what occurred on September 15 and 16, 2019, and why it would be to his benefit to cooperate. (See, e.g. , Dkt. 262 at 2; see also Dkt. 230 at 38-39). Neither of these arguments is persuasive. As to the former, "[p]loys to mislead a suspect or to lull him into a false sense of security that do not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda ’s concerns." Illinois v. Perkins , 496 U.S. 292, 297, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990) ; see , e.g. , United States v. Pryor , 474 F. App'x 831, 834 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that defendant's "statement was not voluntarily given because the law enforcement agents with whom he was speaking told him that they were not interested in pursuing robbery charges and that he was not going to be arrested"); United States v. Peterson , No. 3:18-CR-00049 (JCH), 2018 WL 6061571, at *6 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2018) (denying motion to suppress where law enforcement "led [the defendant] into falsely believing that he was the victim, rather than the suspect, in their investigation"); United States v. Samia , No. (S9) 13 CR 521-LTS, 2016 WL 7223410, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016) (rejecting argument that "false and misleading statements made by the agents during the course of the questioning, in which the agents told [the defendant] that they had already taken an incriminating statement from his co-defendant" rendered statements involuntary), on reconsideration on unrelated grounds , 2017 WL 980333 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2017). As to the latter argument, "statements to the effect that it would be to a suspect's benefit to cooperate are not improperly coercive" but are rather "common sense factual observations," United States v. Ruggles, 70 F.3d 262, 265 (2d Cir. 1995), and "[o]nce [the defendant] ha[s] been advised of his rights, the agents [ar]e free to discuss with him the evidence against him and the reasons why he should cooperate," United States v. Tutino , 883 F.2d 1125, 1138 (2d Cir. 1989) (rejecting defendant's argument that the agents’ conduct was "inherently coercive"). Accordingly, the Court finds that these tactics do not render Wilson's statement coerced or otherwise involuntarily given.

Other portions of the video statement challenged by Wilson concern the officers moving or positioning their bodies towards him, raising their voices or becoming confrontational, or "threatening" him, including with a "RICO" charge, taking his BMW, and taking phones in his girlfriend's home. (See Dkt. 262 at...