Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-02297/USCOURTS-ca10-08-02297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn Dell Cook
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 08-2297

GLENN DELL COOK,

 Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

(D.C. No. 2:CR–06-02403-RCB)

Richard C. Williams, (Gregory J. Fouratt, United States Attorney, with him on the

briefs), Assistant United States Attorney, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Peter Schoenburg, (Marc M. Lowry with him on the brief), of Rothstein,

Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP, Albuquerque, New

Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, McWILLIAMS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

In this interlocutory appeal, the United States challenges the district court’s

suppression of statements Defendant Glenn Dell Cook made to a jail-house

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 1 
2

informant. Also before this court is Cook’s motion to dismiss the United States’

appeal as untimely filed.

We have jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (“An

appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order

of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence . . . .”). We deny Cook’s

motion to dismiss the United States’ appeal, reverse the district court’s order to

suppress Cook’s statements, and remand for further proceedings.

I

The essential facts of this case are not disputed. On December 30, 2004,

cooperating witness Phillip Gantz was found dead in the early morning hours in a

medical unit cell at Doña Ana County Detention Center (“DACDC”) in Las

Cruces, New Mexico. At the time, Cook and two other inmates were housed in

the same cell with Gantz. Cook was incarcerated at the DACDC as a federal pretrial detainee in connection with a federal drug case.

Investigators with the local sheriff’s office responded to the scene, and

although the cause of Gantz’s death was not apparent, his death was thought to be

from natural causes because Gantz was asthmatic. The sheriff’s office

investigators spoke briefly with Cook and the two other inmates who had also

been housed in Gantz’s cell. All three stated that they had slept through the night

and did not see or hear anything. The next day, after learning from an autopsy

that Gantz died from strangulation, the sheriff’s office investigators began

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 2 
1

 The United States conceded before the district court that, although Cook’s

statements during this interview were voluntary, because they were not given

after administration of Miranda warnings, the statements were inadmissible.

3

investigating the case as a homicide and spoke to Cook again and in more detail

at the DACDC.1

Two months later, in March 2005, sheriff’s office investigators returned to

DACDC to follow up on information that one of Cook’s cellmates had recently

admitted to killing Gantz. While at the DACDC conducting interviews, the

sheriff’s office investigators had Cook brought from his housing area to an

interview room for questioning. Almost immediately after being brought to the

interview room, Cook stated that he did not want to speak to the investigators and

that he had a right to an attorney. Cook went to the door and asked to be returned

to his cell. The interview was terminated and Cook was taken back to his cell.

The next month, in April 2005, the sheriff’s office and the FBI received

information from a cooperating informant who also was incarcerated at the

DACDC on federal charges. The cooperating informant stated that Cook told him

about Cook’s role in the Gantz murder, as well as the involvement of Cook’s two

cellmates. The cooperating informant was never a suspect in Gantz’s murder, and

he was never implicated in the events surrounding Gantz’s death. However, the

cooperating informant was himself facing a lengthy federal sentence. The United

States promised to recommend leniency for the cooperating informant should he

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 3 
4

agree to approach Cook and question him about Gantz’s murder.

The FBI then became involved in the Gantz murder investigation, and the

sheriff’s office withdrew shortly thereafter. The FBI was not informed of Cook’s

March 2005 encounter with the sheriff’s office investigators, or that he invoked

his Miranda rights during that encounter. 

In June 2005, through the efforts of the FBI, the cooperating informant was

wired with two recording devices and placed in a cell at the DACDC with Cook. 

The placement of the cooperating informant and Cook in the same cell was the

result of an orchestrated mock “reclassification day” in the DACDC. The

cooperating informant asked Cook about the Gantz murder and Cook described

the roles that each of the three inmates played in killing Gantz. This recorded

statement was suppressed by the district court and is now the subject of this

appeal.

Cook and his two cellmates were eventually charged in a five-count

indictment with offenses related to the murder of Gantz. Cook subsequently filed

a motion to suppress all statements made to the cooperating informant, and the

district court held a hearing on the motion. Cook argued that after he invoked his

Miranda rights in March 2005, the United States improperly reinitiated contact

with him in June 2005 when the FBI arranged for the cooperating informant to

talk to Cook about the Gantz murder, arguing that the United States’ conduct

violated Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S.

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 4 
5

477 (1981), and United States v. Alexander, 447 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Cook also argued that the challenged statement was involuntary because Cook

believed the cooperating informant’s motivation in asking about the Gantz murder

was to determine if Cook was cooperating with the government, which the

cooperating informant could then expose within the DACDC.

The United States argued that at the time of the challenged statement, Cook

viewed the cooperating informant as a fellow inmate and was therefore not in a

police-dominated atmosphere so as to implicate the concerns underlying Miranda. 

The United States also argued that Cook was not in Miranda custody at the time

of the challenged statement and therefore Miranda and Edwards did not apply.

The district court entered an order granting Cook’s motion to suppress on

September 29, 2008. The district court found: (1) in March 2005, Cook

unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and right to remain silent, and never

subsequently waived those rights; (2) the cooperating informant was an agent of

the government when he questioned Cook in June 2005; (3) the cooperating

informant’s questioning of Cook violated the Constitution because re-initiation of

interrogation after invocation of Miranda rights is constitutionally prohibited; (4)

although a substantial interval had passed between the March 2005 questioning

and the cooperating informant’s questioning in June 2005, Cook was not given

fresh Miranda warnings, and the subject of the June 2005 questioning was the

same as the March 2005 questioning. Based upon these findings, the district

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 5 
6

court concluded that the government violated Miranda when it re-initiated

questioning of Cook and granted Cook’s motion to suppress his June 2005

statements. 

On October 6, 2008, the United States filed a motion to reconsider. The

United States stated that it filed the motion “to clarify that its arguments also

include that (1) there was no custodial interrogation and thus Miranda did not

apply and, regardless, (2) there was a break in custody between the invocation

and the statement and thus Edwards did not apply.” Aplt. App. at 186. The

district court entered an order denying the motion to reconsider on November 4,

2008. On December 2, 2008, the United States filed a notice of appeal. Shortly

thereafter, Cook filed his motion to dismiss the United States’ appeal as untimely

filed.

II

A. Appellate Jurisdiction

A timely notice of appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Bowles v.

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007). The United States had thirty days to appeal

the district court’s order. 18 U.S.C. § 3731; see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(B). 

In a criminal case, a timely motion for reconsideration, defined as one filed

within the time to appeal, postpones the time to appeal until the court disposes of

the motion. See United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78 (1964). A timely motion

for reconsideration renders the original judgment non-final for purposes of appeal

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 6 
7

as long as the motion for reconsideration is pending, whether the issue involved is

factual or legal. United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8 (1976).

In United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 (1991), the Supreme Court reversed

this court’s decision that the government’s timely motion to reconsider based on

grounds previously abandoned by the government did not postpone the time to

appeal. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the general rule it had set forth in Healy. 

Id. at 6–7. The Court stated:

[T]here is no certain way of deciding in advance which

motions for reconsideration have the requisite degree of

merit, and which do not. Given this, it is far better that all

such motions be subsumed under one general rule—the

rule laid down in Healy. Without a clear general rule

litigants would be required to guess at their peril the date

on which the time to appeal commences to run. Prudent

attorneys would be encouraged to file notices of appeal

from orders of the district court, even though the latter

court is in the course of considering a motion for rehearing

of the order. Less prudent attorneys would find

themselves litigating in the courts of appeals whether a

motion for reconsideration filed in the district court had

sufficient potential merit to justify the litigant’s delay in

pursuing appellate review. Neither development would be

desirable.

Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted). With the strong preference for the clear,

general rule of Healy in mind, we turn to the motion for reconsideration in this

case. 

Here, Cook argues that the government’s motion was not a true motion for

reconsideration and therefore did not postpone the time in which to appeal. Cook

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 7 
8

contends that the motion merely sought clarification of the wording of the district

court’s order to include two additional legal arguments presented by the

government. 

Although the United States’ motion is not a model of clarity, the motion

can be read to indicate that the United States was seeking reconsideration of the

district court’s order, i.e., for the district court to “reconsider [a] question decided

in the case.” Id. (internal quotations omitted; alteration in original). It is true

that there was no prayer for relief in the United States’ motion for

reconsideration, but the United States argued two issues which would have

resulted in reversal if the court would have ruled in its favor on either one. Thus,

we do not read the motion as merely seeking to correct the wording of the district

court’s order. Moreover, adopting Cook’s narrow reading of the government’s

motion could result in a blurring of the general rule, which would leave litigants

to guess when the time to appeal commences to run, a result contrary to that

preferred in Healy and Ibarra. Therefore, we conclude that the United States filed

a timely motion for reconsideration, which postponed the running of its time to

appeal. 

After the denial of the motion to reconsider, the United States filed a notice

of appeal within thirty days. As a result, we have jurisdiction over the United

States’ appeal, and deny Cook’s motion to dismiss.

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 8 
9

B. Motion to Suppress

When reviewing an order granting a motion to suppress, this court accepts

the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and views the

evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s finding. United States

v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Moreover, at a hearing

on a motion to suppress, “the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to

the evidence, as well as the inferences and conclusions drawn therefrom, are

matters for the trial judge.” United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 876 (10th

Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, we review de novo an ultimate question of

constitutional law. United States v. Wynne, 993 F.2d 760, 764 (10th Cir. 1993). 

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court held that

the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits admitting

statements given by a suspect during “custodial interrogation” without a prior

warning. Id. at 444. Custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody . . . .” Id. The

warning mandated by Miranda was meant to preserve the Fifth Amendment

privilege during “incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a

police-dominated atmosphere.” Id. at 445. That atmosphere is believed to

generate “inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the

individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not

otherwise do so freely.” Id. at 467. Though Miranda must be enforced strictly,

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 9 
10

its application lies “only in those types of situations in which the concerns that

powered the decision are implicated.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 437

(1984). 

In Illinois v. Perkins, the Supreme Court held that an inmate’s confession

was admissible because it was not the product of a custodial interrogation. 496

U.S. 292, 296–97 (1990). In that case, the state sought to elicit statements from

an inmate regarding a murder by placing an undercover agent in his cell. Id. at

294–95. The inmate proceeded to confide in the undercover agent, relating

specific details of the murder. Id. at 295. The undercover agent did not give the

inmate Miranda warnings prior to the conversations. Id. 

The Supreme Court noted that the rationale underlying Miranda and its

progeny dictates that the warnings are only necessary during “incommunicado

interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere.” Id. at 296

(quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 445). The Court recognized that it was “the

premise of Miranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of

custody and official interrogation.” Id. at 297. When the government appears to

control the suspect’s fate, the Court has assumed that there are pressures that may

weaken the suspect’s will. Id. But when the suspect “does not know that he is

conversing with a government agent, these pressures do not exist.” Id. Thus, the

concerns underlying Miranda are inapplicable in the Perkins undercover agent

context, even when the suspect is incarcerated. Id.

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 10 
11

Here, as in Perkins, Cook was completely unaware that he was in the

presence of a government agent. Because Miranda and its progeny were directed

at the prevention of pressure and coercion in custodial interrogation settings, the

fears motivating exclusion of confessions which are the product of such custodial

interrogation settings are simply not present in this case. Id. at 296. 

(“Conversations between suspects and undercover agents do not implicate the

concerns underlying Miranda. The essential ingredients of a ‘police-dominated

atmosphere’ and compulsion are not present when an incarcerated person speaks

freely to someone whom he believes to be a fellow inmate.”). Deception which

takes advantage of a suspect’s misplaced trust in a friend or fellow inmate does

not implicate the right against self-incrimination nor the Fifth Amendment right

to counsel. Id. at 297–300. A suspect in those circumstances speaks “at his own

peril.” Id. at 298. 

Cook argues that his case is distinguishable from Perkins because he

asserted his right to counsel prior to his conversation with the cooperating

informant, and thus, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is controlling. In

Edwards, the Supreme Court held that after an accused clearly invokes his right to

have counsel present during a custodial interrogation, officers must cease all

questioning and may not reinitiate questioning on any matter until counsel is

provided, “unless the accused himself initiates further communications,

exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Id. at 484–85. In Edwards, the

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 11 
12

defendant was arrested, informed of his Miranda rights, and questioned in jail

until the defendant requested an attorney. Id. at 478–79. Questioning ceased, but

the next day police officers returned to the jail, again informed the defendant of

his Miranda rights, and then obtained the defendant’s confession when he said he

was willing to talk. Id. at 479. The Edwards rule requires that “when an accused

has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a

valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he

responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been

advised of his rights.” Id. at 484 (emphasis added). 

But in order to implicate Miranda and Edwards, there must be a custodial

interrogation. See Montejo v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2079 (2009)

(discussing custodial interrogation in the context of the Sixth Amendment right to

counsel). In Montejo, the Supreme Court noted that the Miranda-Edwards line of

cases applies “only in the context of custodial interrogation. If the defendant is

not in custody then those decisions do not apply.” Id. at 2090; see also United

States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[B]oth a custodial

situation and official interrogation are required. Absent either a custodial

situation or official interrogation, Miranda and Edwards are not implicated.”). 

Edwards depended on the existence of custodial interrogation. But in this case,

Cook was unaware that he was speaking to a government agent. As a result, his

questioning lacked the police domination inherent in custodial interrogation. See

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 12 
13

Perkins, 496 U.S. at 296–97. Thus, without custodial interrogation, Edwards does

not apply. And because Edwards does not apply, it is irrelevant that Cook had

previously invoked his right to counsel in March 2005 when questioned by the

sheriff’s office investigators. 

Cook also contends that the government violated his right to remain silent

under Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975). In that case, the Supreme Court

applied Miranda and held that once a suspect invokes the right to remain silent

during a custodial interrogation, the admissibility of statements obtained during a

subsequent custodial interrogation depends upon whether the suspect’s right to

cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored.” Id. at 104 

Cook relies on our decision in United States v. Alexander, 447 F.3d 1290

(10th Cir. 2006), to stand for the proposition that executive-initiated questioning

is permissible under Mosley only under four conditions: “(1) at the time the

defendant invoked his right to remain silent, the questioning ceased; (2) a

substantial interval passed before the second interrogation; (3) the defendant was

given a fresh set of Miranda warnings; and (4) the subject of the second

interrogation [is] unrelated to the first.” Id. at 1294 (alteration in original). Cook

then argues that because those four conditions were not met, his statements were

inadmissible under Mosley.

In Alexander, the defendant, an inmate at a federal correctional institution,

was implicated in an assault on another inmate. Id. at 1292. When the FBI

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 13 
14

questioned him, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and

returned to his cell. Id. Subsequently, the FBI placed Alexander’s friend in the

adjacent cell, and the friend convinced Alexander to contact the FBI and give his

statement. Id. at 1293. Alexander then contacted the FBI, waived his Miranda

rights, and confessed to assaulting the other inmate. Id. No incriminating

statements were made to Alexander’s friend—his only involvement was at his

own request, and related only to convincing Alexander to speak with the FBI. 

See id.

In Alexander, we concluded that the defendant’s friend was not a

government agent. Id. at 1296. In that case, we began with the recognition that

the Constitution applies only to government actors, not private parties. See id. at

1294. We then concluded that because Alexander’s friend was not a government

agent, the Constitution was not implicated. See id. at 1297. Since the

Constitution did not apply to the conversation between Alexander and his friend,

we did not reach the next question: whether that conversation amounted to an

unlawful custodial interrogation. In the case at bar, it is not disputed on appeal

that the cooperating informant who obtained incriminating statements from Cook

was a government agent. Nor is there any question that the Constitution applies

to government agents. Rather, we are presented with a different question than

was presented in Alexander. We are presented with the specific question of

whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits a government agent from questioning a

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 14 
15

defendant not subject to custodial interrogation if that defendant has previously

invoked his Miranda rights. We must now answer whether Mosley applies absent

custodial interrogation. 

Like Edwards, Mosley rests on the holdings in Miranda, and thus, the

outcome in Mosley turned on whether his statements were the product of

custodial interrogation. Mosley requires law enforcement to honor an

individual’s invocation of the right to remain silent in order to “counteract[] the

coercive pressures of the custodial setting.” 423 U.S. at 104 (emphasis added). 

As discussed above, Cook did not know he was speaking to a government agent,

and therefore, he was not subject to the pressures of a custodial setting. Thus,

Mosley does not apply. 

Here, there is no question that Cook spoke freely with the cooperating

informant, was not coerced, and the circumstances surrounding their conversation

were nothing akin to police interrogation. In our view, such casual questioning

by a fellow inmate does not equate to “police interrogation,” even though the

government coordinated the placement of the fellow inmate and encouraged him

to question Cook. See, e.g., United States v. Ingle, 157 F.3d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir.

1998) (holding that the government’s encouragement of conversation within

prison does not establish “the kind of coercive police activity that renders a

confession involuntary”). 

Accordingly, we conclude Cook’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel and

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 15 
2

 While this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court announced that

a two week “break in custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established

in [Edwards].” Maryland v. Shatzer, --- U.S. ----, 130 S. Ct. 1213, 175 L. Ed. 2d 

1045, slip op. at 1, 18 (Feb. 24, 2010). Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled

that a prisoner’s return to the general prison population amounted to a break in

Miranda custody. Id. at 14–16. We directed the parties to file supplemental

briefs addressing Shatzer.

In Shatzer, the defendant was incarcerated in a state correctional facility,

when a police detective questioned him about an unrelated crime. Id. at 1–2. The

defendant said that he wanted an attorney, and questioning ceased. Id. at 2. Two

and a half years later, the defendant was still incarcerated when a different

detective visited the defendant, read him his Miranda rights, and asked him about

the same crime. Id. The defendant then waived his Miranda rights and made

incriminating statements. Id. at 2–3.

“In every case involving Edwards, the courts must determine whether the

suspect was in custody when he requested counsel and when he later made the

statements he seeks to suppress.” Id. at 12. The parties in Shatzer did not dispute

that the defendant was subject to custodial interrogation during the second

interview when he made incriminating statements. Id. at 13. In the case at bar,

however, we have concluded that Cook was not subject to custodial interrogation

when he made the incriminating statements at issue. Because we conclude that

Miranda and Edwards do not apply to Cook’s conversation with the cooperating

informant, the rule announced in Shatzer is likewise inapplicable. 

16

right to remain silent were not violated, and reverse the district court’s grant of

Cook’s motion to suppress.

Because we conclude that there was no violation of Cook’s Fifth

Amendment rights, we need not address whether there was a sufficient break in

custody to negate Cook’s prior assertion of his Miranda rights.2

 

III.

We DENY defendant’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely filed. We

REVERSE the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress and

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 16 
17

REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. We GRANT the parties’

motions to seal the opening brief, appellant’s appendix, response brief,

supplemental appendix, reply brief, supplemental brief, supplemental response

brief, and supplemental reply brief.

Appellate Case: 08-2297 Document: 01018396275 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 17