United States v. Zygmont
| Decision Date | 26 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:12-cr-152 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAMELA ZYGMONT |
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
(Doc. 16)
This matter came before the court on May 28, 2013, for oral argument on Defendant Pamela Zygmont's motion to suppress.1 (Doc. 16.) The court heard testimony from Vermont State Police ("VSP") Detective Francis LaBombard and Ms. Zygmont.
Ms. Zygmont is charged in the District of Vermont with one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, as part of a conspiracy involving 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(B), 846. She seeks to suppress statements she made on August 1, 2012, during an interview conducted by Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Paul Van de Graaf and VSP Detective Francis LaBombard prior to Ms. Zygmont's scheduled grand jury appearance. Ms. Zygmont contends that she was subject to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings, that her statements were coerced and therefore involuntary, and that her statements were taken in violation of her right to remain silent and her right to counsel.
The government opposes the motion to suppress, arguing Ms. Zygmont was not in custody for Miranda purposes and that her statements were not obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.
Ms. Zygmont is represented by John C. Mabie, Esq. The government is represented by AUSA Paul J. Van de Graaf and AUSA Joseph R. Perella.
Based upon the admissible evidence, the court makes the following findings of fact. In the course of investigating the July 28, 2011 death of Melissa Barratt and Frank Caraballo's potential role in that death, the government sought to interview Ms. Zygmont, who is the mother of Mr. Caraballo's child, regarding Mr. Caraballo's whereabouts on the date in question. Frank Caraballo is charged with various drug and firearms offenses in the District of Vermont in connection with Ms. Barratt's death.
In July 2012, the government subpoenaed Ms. Zygmont's appearance at a grand jury proceeding in which Mr. Caraballo was the apparent target. After receiving the subpoena, Ms. Zygmont was incarcerated in Massachusetts on unrelated state court charges stemming from her arrest in Northampton, Massachusetts for assault and battery, and her subsequent arrest in Holyoke, Massachusetts on charges including possession of crack cocaine. Two separate attorneys represent Ms. Zygmont in the Massachusetts criminal cases.
On the day of her scheduled grand jury appearance, the United States Marshal's Service transported Ms. Zygmont from Keene, New Hampshire, where she was held temporarily, to Rutland, Vermont. When Ms. Zygmont arrived at the federal courthouse in Rutland, AUSA Van de Graaf and Detective LaBombard arranged to speak with her. The Marshals chose the location for the interview and were responsible for the manner in which Ms. Zygmont was restrained. Ms. Zygmont was shackled but not handcuffed during the interview, although she arrived at the interview with both sets of restraints. The interview took place in a room in the Marshal's office at a table with a partition that separated Ms. Zygmont from the two interviewers. The interview room was a secure room, and Ms. Zygmont was not free to leave the room without an escort. At no point during the interview did AUSA Van de Graaf or Detective LaBombard provide Miranda warnings.
At the outset of the interview, AUSA Van de Graaf and VSP Detective LaBombard introduced themselves, telling Ms. Zygmont who they were and for whom they worked. Ms. Zygmont testified that, notwithstanding these introductions, she thought one of the interviewers was Mr. Caraballo's attorney since she presumed that the grand jury proceeding was focused on Mr. Caraballo and that she would have to testify against him. When pressed, however, Ms. Zygmont conceded that she was told AUSA Van de Graaf was a federal prosecutor, and she admitted she knew AUSA Van de Graaf and Detective LaBombard were not there to "help" her. There is thus no evidence to support a conclusion that Ms. Zygmont was misled by the interviewers that either of them was Mr. Caraballo's attorney.
AUSA Van de Graaf explained to Ms. Zygmont that she was not obligated to answer their questions and that she could have an attorney present during the interview. Ms. Zygmont agreed to speak without an attorney present; at no point during the interview did she request an attorney, ask the interviewers to contact one or both of her Massachusetts attorneys, or refuse to continue to answer their questions without an attorney present. Neither AUSA Van de Graaf nor Detective LaBombard explained what Ms. Zygmont needed to do in order to leave the room or terminate the interview, and she did not ask. AUSA Van de Graaf explained to Ms. Zygmont what would happen at the grand jury proceeding if she testified, and he offered to review with her the questions he planned to ask her. The primary focus of the interview was Mr. Caraballo and his alleged role in Ms. Barratt's death.
The interview proceeded in a conversational manner. Ms. Zygmont was calm and cooperative throughout the interview. Prior to the interview, she had experience with the criminal justice system and had completed high school and one year of college. In her testimony before the court, she revealed no cognitive deficits, confusion, or inability to understand the nature of the questions posed to her.
The interviewers did not raise their voices, make any display or threat of force, and did not physically touch Ms. Zygmont. Although neither interviewer directly accused Ms. Zygmont of lying, they expressed doubt as to the veracity of some of herstatements. Specifically, AUSA Van de Graaf told Ms. Zygmont that he did not believe she was being honest in her answers to his questions regarding the events surrounding the day of Ms. Barratt's death.
The interview lasted no longer than thirty minutes. Although Detective LaBombard was aware that Ms. Zygmont had pending Massachusetts charges, he did not know the nature of those charges or the court in which they were pending. Neither he nor AUSA Van de Graaf attempted to contact Ms. Zygmont's Massachusetts attorneys. At her grand jury appearance, Ms. Zygmont refused to proceed without an attorney. She did not appear before the grand jury until counsel was appointed.
Under Miranda, a police officer may not question a suspect who has been taken "into custody" without first warning the suspect that he or she:
has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). If no warning is given to a suspect who is in custody, the prosecution may not use statements obtained during the interrogation in its case-in-chief. United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 668 (2d Cir. 2004).
"A criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing that he or she was subjected to custodial interrogation." United States v. Ramos, 2012 WL 1854747, at *11 (D. Vt. May 21, 2012); see also United States v. Jorgensen, 871 F.2d 725, 729 (8th Cir. 1989) (); United States v. Davis, 792 F.2d 1299, 1309 (5th Cir. 1986) ().
"[W]hether a suspect is 'in custody' is an objective inquiry." J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 2402 (2011); see also Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,663 (2004) (same). "Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave[.]" Id. (quoting Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995)). The Second Circuit has held that "[t]he free-to-leave inquiry constitutes a necessary, but not determinative, first step in establishing Miranda custody." Newton, 369 F.3d at 670. "The 'ultimate inquiry' for determining Miranda custody . . . [is] 'whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" Id. (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam)). A court must "examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation." Id. (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994)).
Those circumstances include, inter alia, the interrogation's duration; its location (e.g., at the suspect's home, in public, in a police station, or at the border); whether the suspect volunteered for the interview; whether the officers used restraints; whether weapons were present and especially whether they were drawn; whether officers told the suspect he was free to leave or under suspicion[.] . . . The circumstances also include . . . the nature of the questions asked.
United States v. FNU LNU, 653 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
Ms. Zygmont seeks to suppress her statements made during the August 1, 2012 interview, because she contends that she was subjected to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The government contends that Miranda warnings were not required because "there were no coercive circumstances that made the interview setting custodial within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment." (Doc. 17 at 3.) The court agrees.
To the extent that Ms. Zygmont relies on her status as an inmate incarcerated in Massachusetts on unrelated ...
To continue reading
Request your trial