Wilson v. United States

• Decision Date: 25 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 80-1392.,80-1392.
• Citation: 444 A.2d 25
• Parties: Joseph F. WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

444 A.2d 25

Joseph F. WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 80-1392.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued December 15, 1981.

Decided March 25, 1982.

John W. Sansing, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Marc B. Tucker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time the case was briefed and argued, John A. Terry, Michael W. Farrell, and David W. Stanley, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before KELLY, MACK and PRYOR, Associate Judges.

MACK, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from a conviction of accessory after the fact to felony murder (kidnapping) (D.C.Code 1973, § 22-106). The appellant contends that an inculpatory statement he made should have been suppressed because the two detectives who transported him from the Arlington County Jail to the District for processing and then to the Superior Court honored neither 1) his Fifth Amendment (Miranda) right to remain silent nor 2) his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This statement, "[in] particular[]," later formed the basis of the appellant's conviction after a stipulated trial. Brief for Appellee at 7.¹ We agree with the appellant that the detectives failed to "scrupulously honor" his right to remain silent and reverse.

The appellant was arrested at Fort Myer, Virginia about 9:30 a. m. on July 13, 1978 by a military policeman. The policeman, whose sole responsibility was to transfer the appellant to public authorities, read appellant's rights to him and did not question him. He did not ask the appellant to sign a Miranda waiver card.

The appellant spent that night at the Arlington County Jail. The next morning, at approximately 11:00, two District Homicide Detectives, Aduddell and Chaney, arrived to transport him back to the District. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Aduddell testified that he recited the appellant's Miranda rights to him while in Arlington and that the appellant said he understood them.² He also testified, however that, when questioned, the appellant said he had "nothing to tell," other than to "den[y] his present [sic] at the time of the offense." The detective also testified that the appellant was "curious" as to how they had gotten his name and that they told the appellant that a witness to the alleged offense had made a statement implicating him. Further, Detective Aduddell testified that he, Detective Chaney and the appellant continued to discuss the case during their drive back to the District.

When the detectives and the appellant arrived at the District's Homicide Office, the officers again verbally advised appellant of his rights. Detective Aduddell testified that the appellant did not waive his rights and that he and Detective Chaney continued to discuss the case and the evidence against the appellant with him and to respond to his questions. He also testified that he and Detective Chaney had earlier discussed the possible efficacy of providing the appellant with increasingly more specific information regarding his alleged offense. On cross-examination, Detective Aduddell continued:

Q. And your prior discussion with Detective Chaney about whether or not to talk to him further, in those discussions, was there any indications of what might be your purpose in revealing such information?

A. We felt if we were more specific, perhaps Mr. Wilson would decide to change his mind and give us a statement. Q. You were working in effect on Mr. Wilson, to abandon the — to induce Mr. Wilson to abandon the — his position of the exercise of his rights?

A. I don't like the terminology, but I'll say yes.

Q. It was a deliberate strategy, was it not?

A. It would say it was deliberate only that he initiated the questions of us.

After the appellant was processed, Detectives Aduddell and Chaney took him by car to the Superior Court cellblock. Detective Aduddell testified that as he was pulling into the entrance of the court the appellant asked him to stop and again inquired about the evidence that had implicated him. It was at that point that the detectives told him the name of the witness — a friend of his and a witness to the murder, Linda Baldwin. Detective Aduddell described the appellant's reaction as "flabbergasted. He couldn't believe it." Thereafter, the detectives and the appellant talked for "a couple of minutes" during which the detectives told him that it would be in his interest to make a truthful statement.³ He then agreed to give a statement which was executed between 12:30 and 2:30 that afternoon.

I.

Our Fifth Amendment analysis begins with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The Court there held that a suspect in police custody must be informed that he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can and will be used against him in court; that he has the right to consult with and to the presence of counsel during interrogation and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. The familiar Miranda warnings are the prophylactic safeguard assuring at least a notice of these rights.

The question here, however, is not whether the appellant was advised of his rights but, rather, whether he had invoked his right to remain silent and, if so, whether the detectives failed to "scrupulously honor," Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), that right by continuing to "interrogate" him. If we find that the detectives scrupulously honored that right we must then look to whether the appellant "intentionally relinquish[ed] or abandon[ed]" his right to remain silent. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); United States v. Alexander, D.C. App., 428 A.2d 42, 48-49 n. 19, 52 n. 27 (1981).

The trial court found that appellant invoked his right to remain silent, both in Arlington when he said he had "nothing to tell" and later at the Homicide Office. Finding that conclusion to have been supported by substantial evidence, we affirm it. D.C.Code 1973, § 17-305(a).

"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." Miranda v. Arizona, supra 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. at 1627. The next question we must address, therefore, is whether the detectives' continuing discussions with the appellant after his invocation of his right to remain silent amounted to "interrogation." We hold that they did under the teachings of Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-02, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980).⁴

At the suppression hearing, Detective Aduddell admitted that his and Detective Chaney's intent in engaging the appellant in conversation was to induce his statement. While this alone is not dispositive under Innis,⁵ the Court there did stress that the definition of interrogation extends to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. As such, the intent of the police in Innis was "not . . . irrelevant"; in fact, the Court concluded, "where a police practice is designed to elicit an incriminating response from the accused, it is unlikely that the practice will not also be one which the police should have known was reasonably likely to have that effect." Id. at 301-02 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. at 1690 n. 7.

While the Court in Innis failed to hold that an interrogation had taken place, it did so on the basis that, given the circumstances surrounding the respondent's statements,⁶ the police should not have known that the suspect would be moved to make an incriminatory response. Id. at 302-03, 100 S.Ct. at 1690-91. Such was not the case here as Detective Aduddell testified regarding his and Detective Chaney's agreed-upon plan and intent to comment so as to elicit exactly the type of incriminating statement which the appellant eventually made. "

This court adopted the Innis test in United States v. Alexander, supra, a case not unlike this one in that there, too, a detective, after Alexander had asserted her right to counsel, made statements to her and used "techniques" which, he later admitted, were designed to elicit inculpating statements. Id. at 51. There we held that the detective's admission "conclusively demonstrat[ed]" that he did not "scrupulously honor" the suspect's right not to be interrogated and reversed the trial judge's ruling that she was not interrogated within the meaning of Miranda. Accord, Robertson v. United States, D.C.App., 429 A.2d 192 (1981).

While our finding here that the detectives continued to interrogate the appellant after he invoked his right to remain silent goes far toward a conclusion that they did not "scrupulously honor" the appellant's rights, we nonetheless must look to the strictures of Michigan v. Mosley, supra, to determine, ultimately, whether the appellant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

We are met, at the outset, with the trial court's finding of no Fifth or Sixth Amendment violations in that the detectives did not overbear the appellant's will nor improperly induce his statement, but, rather, that the appellant voluntarily gave a statement and, in fact, initiated the conversation himself.⁷ In reviewing a court's denial of a motion to suppress we may not disturb its factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. D.C.Code 1973, § 17-305(a). On the facts of this case, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the appellant's rights were not scrupulously honored and, as such, Miranda, supra, and Mosley, supra, require the exclusion of his statement.

In Mosley, the Court noted the factors which are to be considered in determining whether a suspect's right to cut off questioning has been scrupulously honored. They are: 1) was the suspect...