## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 4251 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M Y R ON R OB I NS ON, a/k/a B O O JIE , D ef endant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C R 00067

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 17, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 10, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. I n 200 3, M yr on “ Booj i e” Robi nson g ave l aw enf or cem ent a gents a si gned st ate
m ent i m p lica ti ng hi m sel fi n cr i m i nal fi re ar m s t ra ffi cki ng. I n 200 8, he was i nd i c te d fo r conspi ring to tr anspor t fi re ar m s a cro ss sta te l i nes wit h ou t a l i cense and fo r re c e i v i ngfi r e a r ms t r a ns po r t e d a c r o s s s t a t e l i ne s i n v i ol ati on of 18 U

. S. C. § 9 22. Bef or e t ri al, he fi l ed a m oti on to supp re ss the sta tem ent he had g i ven to law enfo rce -2 N o. 08

- 4251

m ent a gents , ar gui ng tha t he w as in ter ro gat ed i n vi ol ation of his Fifth A m en d m en t rights. T he d istric t c o u rt denie d the m ot ion. The cas e went to tr i aland Robi nson was c o nv i ct ed. Ro bi ns o n a ppea ls, a r g ui ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourter re d i n denyi ng hi s m oti on t o supp re ss. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und M yr on R ob in so n is ap p ar en tly on e o f th os e p eo p le w ho i s bl ess ed w i th the gi ft of g ab, but i n thi s ca se that gifttu rn ed ou t t o h is d et rim en t. O ve r th e y ea rs , h is c rim inal as soc i ation s have bro ught hi m i nto conta ct with quit e a few federa l and st at e l aw enf or cem ent a gents
. Despit e the app ar ent c onfl i cts ofi nter est, Robi nson has k e p ti n t o u c h wi th s e v e r a l o fth e s e a c q u a i n t a n c e s . He h as ev en c alle d th em for ad vic e on c rit ica l p er so n a l d e c isi ons, such a s where to fin d t he be st cri m i nal defense re prese ntati on. I n 1995 and 1 996, Robi nson got to k now F BIS peci alAge ntR. Le e W al te r s an d Ass i st an t U ni ted S tat es A tto rneyf orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I ll inois B rian N etols. A t th at tim e, R obinson w as a coop erat i ngwi tn es s i n a n un der co ve r s tingi nv es ti g at i o n i nvol vi ng co rr up t pol i ce o ffi cer s. Robi nson was p aid cash f o r hi s co o per at i o n, butdur i ngthe i nv es ti g at i o n h e m ad e fa lse st at em en ts to fed er al a ge n ts , w h ich led to h is g ui l ty pl ea f o r vi o l at i ng 18 U. S

. C. § 10 01

. H e wa s s en tence d to tw o yea rs ’ pro bati on . Overthe next decade, Robi nson k ept i n occ asi onalco ntact w i th A gent W al ter s, ca l l i nghi m a s o fte n a s th r ee t i m es pe r y ea r to c atch u p and m ake sm al l ta l k. Robi nson a l so had s om e co ntactN o. 08

- 4251 3

A “straw p u rch ase” occu rs w he n one ind iv id u al p u rch ases a 1 fi re ar m onbe hal fofan othe r i ndi vi dual butf i l l s outthe requir ed Form 4473 as i fhe or she w ere the actu a l pu rchas er. Suc h pur c hases ar e oft enus ed whe n the i ndi vi dual who wishes t o pur c has e the gun i s pr ohibi t ed fro m pur c has i ng a fi re ar m f or s om e re as on, s uc h a s a pre vi ous fel ony c onvic t i on. B UREAU OF A LCO HOL , T OB AC CO , F I R E A R MS, A ND E XPLOS IV ES, F EDERAL F I REARMS R EGULA TI ONS R EFERENCE G UI DE 1 6 5 (20 0 5 ). w i th N eto l s o verthe yea rs . M ostr ecent l y, in e ar l y 2 008, he co ntac te d N eto l s a nd as ked f ora re com m endati on f oran a tto rneyto r epres ent him in thi s ca se. N eto l s e nd ed the conve rs ati on after deter m i ni ng Robi nson ha d be en c h ar ge d in fe d er al c ou rtan d w as rep re se n te d by co u n se l. Returni ng to 20 02, afterhi s br i efst i nt as si sti ng fed er al l aw enfo rce m ent (a nd pre sum abl y a fterhi s t er m o fpro bati on had expi re d), Robi nson a nd Carl os O rr w en t into busi ness tog etherr ese l l i ng i l l

- go tt en guns i n the Ch i cago ar ea . Ro b in so n u se d h is c on n ec tio n s in S h re ve p or t, L ou isiana to m ake str aw pu rchas es of guns at p aw n sho ps. 1 H e an d Orr us ed the i r Chi ca g o c o nne ct i o ns t o s el l the g u n s u p no r th at a h e ft y p r o fi t
. O n a tl e a s tt wo occa sion s, R obinson and Orr traveled to Shrevep ort and hi re d peopl e wi tho utc r i mi na l bac kgr ounds, includ ing Re ginald De an, Teres a W ood w ard , and M ary W i l l i am s t o m ake st ra w purchase s o f g u ns thatRobi nson an d Or r ha d s el ec te d. W he n th eyha d a ss embl ed th e gu n s, R o b i n so n an d O rr b ox ed an d sh ip p ed th em via Feder alExp re ss to Robi nson’ s hom e i n M aywood, I l l i noi s. Once the g u ns ar ri ved i n M aywood, Robi nson r em ove d the s er i alnum ber s a nd r eso ld them to var i ous b uyer s,4 N o. 08

- 4251

It is no t clear w ha t m o t i v a t ed R ob inso n to m ak e this call in 2 the fi rs tpl ac e, buthe appa rently g otFe rg us on’ s num ber fro m a car d that was l eft with Rob ins on’ s m other. i nc l udi ngRo y ne l Co l eman , w ho ha d i nt r o duce d Or r a nd Robi nson. S om eti m e l ate r, Chica go pol i ce o ffi cer s r ec over ed a . 38- c alib er H i gh Point pi sto l and a 9

- m i l l i m ete r Hi g h Po i ntp i s t o l, b o th wi th s e r i a l n umb e r s r em ov e d. Foren sic spe ciali sts w ith th e I ll inois State Po lic e w ere abl e t o re sto re the ser i alnum ber s, wh i ch m atched w eap ons thatW ood w ard and De a n a d m itted to pu rchasi ng f orRobi nson i n Shr eve port
. I n 200 3, Robi nson phoned Speci alA ge nt J am es F er g us o n o fthe Bur ea u o fA l co ho l, To ba cc o , F i r ea r m s, a nd E xp losi ves (“A T F”) and set up a m eetin g at Rob inson ’s m othe r’ s ho use in M aywood. Fe rguson was partof a t ask 2 f or ce with fel l ow A TF A gent Dave Bal kem a, M attGai ner o fthe I l l i no i s S ta te Po l ice, a nd J o se ph Bo wer s f r o m the Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent. Befo re the m eet i ng, Fe rguson checke d the N atio nal Cri m e Info rm ati on Centerdataba se and disco ver ed an o utsta nd i ng warr ant forR ob inson f orr eta i l theft, o ri gi nati ng o ut o fthe Lom bar d, I l l i noi s, Pol i ce Dep ar tm en t. W hen Fe rguson and hi s t eam ar ri ved at the M aywood re si dence, they w er e m et by Ch ar l es A l len, Robi nson’ s a tto rney . A l l en as ked F er guson w hat they w anted and, afterl ear ni n g th at the a gents wished to disc uss a n i nvest i gat i on i nto fi re ar m s t ra ffi cking, i nfo rm ed Fer guson th at R obinson would notta l k t o them about the invest i gat i on. A t that point, A gent Gainer i nform ed A l l en thatRobi nson was go i ng to be tak en i nto custo dy on the o utsta nd i ng warr ant.N o. 08

- 4251 5

The r ec or d does no ti ndi c at e whatha ppene d aft erRobi ns on 3 was t ra ns por t ed t o Lom bard , how he pos t ed bo nd, or ho w he gotho m e f ro m the s t at i on. N o explanat ion for the m ore- than- f our-year delay between 4 Robin s on’ s i nc rim i nat i ng s t at em en ti n 2 00 3 a nd hi s c har gi ng (co n tin u ed ...) Ro bi nson a nd the g o ve r nm en t di spu te many o fthe deta i l s o f the e v e ning a ft e r tha t po i nt
. Bu t i n bot h versions , shortly after the p oli ce arrived at his m oth er’s r es i den ce Ro bi ns o n was a r r es te d a nd t r an spo r te d t o the W es tc h es te r, Il lin ois , Po lice D ep ar tm en t at ap p ro x im at ely 8: 00 p. m . and l ate r tr ansfer re d to the Lom bar d Pol i ce Depa r tments ho r tly b efo r e m i dni g ht. W hi l e atRo bi nso n ’s m ot h er ’s h ou se h is law ye r unam b igu ou sly ass er ted Robi ns on ’ s r i ght t o counselbefor e Rob i nson w as ar re ste d, and the g ove rnm ent a cknowle d ge s that Robi nson was noti nform ed o fhi s M i r anda rig h ts ath is m oth er’s hou s e o r du ring the ca r ri d e to W estc he ster. W hi l e a tWes t c he s t e r, h o we v e r, R o b i ns o n s i g ne d a M i r anda wai ve r a nd a detail ed st at ementi m pl i ca ting hi m se l fi n i l l i ci t fi r ea r m s tr affi ck i ng . Af te r he s i g ne d the state m en t, he w as even tu all y trans p orted to th e L om bard po l i ce s ta tion. Ro bi ns o n’ s m o th ert es ti fi ed th ats he cal l ed the Lom bar d pol i ce sta ti on ar ound 9 : 00 p .m . t o in q u ire ab ou t h er so n ’s s ta tu s, b u t n eit h er s h e n or h is att or ney went to the Lom bar d pol i ce s tat i on that e veni ng. 3 I n 200 8, a gr and j ury indict ed Robi nson i n a tw oc o u n ti n d i c t me n tf o r c o n s p i r i ng t o t r a n s p o r tfi r e a r ms pu rchas ed outsi de of I l l i noi s a nd f orr ecei vi ng o ut- of

- sta te fi r ea r m s i n I l l i no i s. R obi ns o n mov ed to s uppr es s th e 46 N o. 08

- 4251

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 i n 2 0 0 8 a p p e a r s i n th e r e c o r d. Ag e n tF e r g u s on t es t i fi e d, h o weve r, thatR ob inso n was no tthe pr i m ar y t ar ge ti n 2 00 3, an d R ob inso n im p licated sev era l ind iv id u als in h is st atem en t. P erh ap s i f h e w as no t the p rim ary targ et, the p olice first pu r s ue d the pe op l e who m h e i m pl i c a t e d. incrim inating sta tem en t from 2003. Th e d istri ct cou rt he l d a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ng, a t whi chi t he ar d t es ti m ony f r o m , a m o ngo th er s, Age nt s Fergu so n a nd Ga i ne r, a nd fro m Ro bi ns o n, Ro bi ns o n’ s m o th er, a nd Ro bi ns o n’s f o r m era tt o r ne y, Cha r l es Al l en . Each sid e to l d var yi ng ve rs i ons ofthe 2003 ev ents. Eve r y o ne a t l ea sta g r ee d tha t Ro bi ns o n c al l ed Age nt F er g us o n an d th at F er g us o n an d o th er l aw enfor ce m en t age nts c am e to the M aywood re si dence athi s r equest. A l l a l s o a g r e e d tha t Ro b i ns o n wa s i nfo r med tha the was bei nga r r es te d pur su an t to a war r an t o uto fthe Lom bard Pol i ce Depar tm ent. Fe rguson t est i fi ed that A gent Gainer to l d Ro bi ns o n tha t he was goi ng to b e ta k ent o the cl ose r pol i ce depar tm ent in W est cheste r, wh i l e Gai ner tes ti fi ed that he di d not r ecal l wh etherhe t ol d Robi nson orhi s a tto rneywh er e he w as going t o b e take n f orpro cess i ng. Robi nson was gi ven t i m e t o c h ange hi s cl othe s and w as then t ake n to the W est cheste r Pol i ce Depar tm ent. A c cor ding to Fer guson and G ai ner, Robi nson was not que st i o ne d o ut si de o fr o ut i ne pr o ce ss i ngqu esti o ns a nd w as n ot i nfo rm ed ofhi s M i r anda r i g ht s. Af te r abo ut tw enty m in u te s at W es tchest er , Robi nson a ske d Fer guson, “W hat do you w ant?” Fer guson tes ti fi ed that he i nfo rm ed Robi nson t h at because Robi nson’ s a tto rneyN o. 08

- 4251 7 had i nvoke d Robi nson’ s r i ght t o counsel, a M i r anda w aiv er w as req u ire d be for e t h ey co u ld d isc u ss th e in ve st igat i on. A t 8 : 41 p.m

. , Robi nson s i gned a M i r anda w aiver; a t1 1 : 1 5 p

. m . h e ma de c ha ng e s t o a nd s i g ne d a h a nd

w ritten stat em en t im p li catin g him self an d several ot h e rs i n the gun tr affi cki ng co nsp ira c y fo r w hi ch he was l a t e r c o nv i c t e d. I n hi s t est i m ony at the e vid enti ar y hea ring, Robi nson cl ai m ed that hi s a tto rneywas to l d not o nl y th at t h e outsta nd i ng warr ant forhi s a rrest o ri gi nated o ut o f Lom bar d, but thatthe offi cer s were go in g to tak e hi m to the Lom bar d Pol i ce Depar tm ent. Robi nson a lso cl ai m ed tha tthe o ffi c e r s b e g a n qu e s t i o ningh i m dur i ngthe r i de to W es tc h est er, co nti nued i nter ro gat i ng hi m o nce they ar ri ved atthe pol i ce s tat i on, and told h im t h at he di d not ne ed ana tt o r ne y . Ro bi ns o n t es ti fi ed th at he s i g ne d the i ncri m i nating st ate m ent a t 1 1: 15 p. m . “t o geto ut o fther e” and backdate d the M i r anda wai ve r t o 8 : 41 p . m . a t th e i nstr ucti on o fA gent Bow es. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d R o b i ns on’ s mo t i o n t o s up press afterfind i ng tha t, al though the questi on was cl ose , Robi nson

— not the p oli ce offi cers

— r eini ti at ed th e co nversa ti on about fi re ar m s t ra ffi cki ng atthe W est cheste r Pol i ce Depar tm ent. The di strict cour t f ound the ev i dence ofRobi nson’ s hi sto ryo fta l king to l aw enf or cem ent e speci al l y c onvi nci ng and co ncl ud ed that Robi nson i ni ti ate d th e c on ve rs at ion be c au se h e w as co n fid en t h e c ou ld ta lk hi s way o ut o fany tr oubl e. A t t ri al, Robi nson’ s 2 003 sta tem ent was publ i sh ed to th e j ur y a nd r ea d o utl o ud b y Age ntF er g us o n du ri ng8 N o. 08

- 4251 hi s t est i m ony. The j ury convict ed Robi nson o n both counts ofthe i nd i ctm ent. The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced Robi nson t o tw o conse cuti ve ter m s o f60 m onths ofi m pri son m en t a n d 36 m on th s o f su p er vis ed r e l e a se . On ap p ea l, R o b in so n ch alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of h is m oti on t o supp re ss.

I I . Discussi on Robi nson a rgues that hi s s tat em ent sh ou l d have be en supp re sse d and that, bec ause the j ury w as al l owed to consi der thi s e vi dence, we should r eve rs e hi s co nvi cti on. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actualfi nd i ngs o n a m o ti o n t o s up pr es s f o r c l ea r e r r o r a nd i ts l eg alc o nc l usio n s d e n ov o. U nited S t at e s v. Burks , 49 0 F

. 3d 563, 56 5 (7th C ir. 2007). U nd er M i r anda v. Ar izona , 384 U .S. 43 6, 44 4 ( 1 9 66 ), a sus pe c tmus tb e i nfo r med o f, a nd v o l un t a r i l y wa i ve, hi s r i ght t o counselbefore bei ng subj ecte d to custo dial in te rro ga tio n . A w aiv er of th e rig h t t o c ou n se l is va lid o nl y i f, unde r the “ to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumstanc es, ” th e w a i v e r w as kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry . Edwards v. Ar izona , 451 U

. S. 47 7, 48 6 n. 9 ( 1981 )

. Once a suspect has in for m ed th e p olic e t h at h e w ish es to co n su lt w ith a law y er , all i nter ro gat i on of the s uspect m ust ce ase “unti l co unsel h a s b e e n ma d e a v a i l a b l e t o h i m, unl e s s th e a c c u s e d h i mse l fi ni ti at es fur th erc o m m uni ca ti o n, e xc ha ng es , o r c o nver sat i ons w i th the pol i ce. ” Id. at 4 84- 85. A suspect i ni ti ate s co nver sat i on i fhe m ake s a st ate m en t that “ev i nc e [ s ] a wi l l i ngne s s a nd a de s i r e f o r a g e ne r a l i z ed disc ussi on about the i nvest i gat i on. ” O r egon v. Br ads haw ,N o. 08

- 4251 9

R ob inso n cla im s that h ad he b een tak en to L om b ard , his 5 m othe r would h ave s om eh ow pre ven t ed h i m fro m gi vi ng a st atem ent. This argum ent igno re s two f act s: fir st, he i nit iat ed con v ersatio n d u ring the p r o cessing of the w arr an t, an d cou ld not, i n a ny e ven t, ha ve bee n r el ea s ed u ntil aft erthe warr ant w as process ed ; s econd, he i nit iat ed conv ers ati on and s igned the M i ra nda w aiver twenty m inutes bef ore hi s m other tel ep ho ne d the L om b ard station to inq u ire ab ou t his statu s. 462 U

. S. 10 39, 10 46 ( 1983 )

. By i tse lf, a suspect’ s ini ti ati on o fc o nv e r s a t i o n do e s n o tn e c e s s a r i l y c o ns t i t ut e a wai ver ofhi s r i ght t o counsel; the suspect’ s wai verm ust a l so be k n o win ga n d v o l u n t a r y, u n d e r t he to t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u mst an ce s, b efo r e l aw enf o r ce m en t ag en ts e ng ag e i n a ny in te rro ga tio n . Edwards , 451 U

. S. at48 6 n. 9. Ro bi ns o n c l ai m s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n fi ndi ng th at h e re in itia te d th e c on ve r s at ion th at res u lte d in h is i ncri m i nating sta tem ent. Speci fi cal l y, he ar gues that un de r the “ t o t a l i t y o f the c i r c ums t a nc e s ” he c o ul d not have re i ni ti ate d conver sat i on with the age nts. Robinson c l a i ms tha tth e o ffi c e r s fi r s tv i o l a t e d Edwards b y de ce i ving hi m by te l l i ng hi m he was g oi ng to t h e L om bar d pol i ce s ta ti o n b u ti n s t e a d t a k i n gh i m t o We s t c h e s t e r . He cl ai m s thi s d ive rs i on was done with the i ntenti on o f el i ci tinga n i nc r i m i na tings ta te m en t an d tha t, b utf o r the di ve r si o n to W es tc he st er, he woul d no t ha ve made th e in c rim in at in g s ta te m en t. T h er efo re , he n o w ins ist s, h is 5 subsequent i ni ti ati on o fa conve rs ati on w ith the pol i ce wa s n o tv a l i d. Robi nson a rg u es that the questi on o fwh ethero r not he i ni ti ate d the co nver sat i on i s s u b j ec t to de novo10 N o. 08

- 4251

The re i s no doubtthat, unde r the f ac t s a s fou nd by the 6 di s t r i c tc ou r t, Ro bi ns on ’ s un pr ompt e d que s t i on, “W ha tdo yo u w a n t? ” w as suffic ie nt under Edw ar ds t o i ni t i at e a c onv er sa tio n . SeeBrads haw , 46 2 U. S. at 10 45 ( uphol di ng a f ind i ng ofi ni t i at i on wher e defen danthad as ke d, “W el l , whati s goi ng to h a p p en to m e n o w ?” ). r e v i e w. N o ts o . T h e s o - c a l l e d “ t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u mst a nc e s ” t e s ta ddr e s s e s the di s t i nc tque s t i o n o fwh ether a M ira nda w aiv er w as vo lu n ta ry an d kn ow in g. W h ile th a ti s a l e g a l qu e s t i o n s u b j e c tt o d e n o v o r e v i e w, th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s unde r l y i ngfi ndi ng s o ff ac t, i ncl udi ng th e n e c e s s a r y f a c t th a t a s u s p e c t i n i t i a t e d the c o nver sat i on with l aw enf or cem ent a gents, ar e r evi ew ed f or clear error. Brad s haw , 462 U .S

. at 10 46 -47 ; see also 6 Edwards , 45 1 U.S

. at48 6 n. 9. Ofc o ur se , i fthe o ffi ce r s’ c o nduc t pr i o r t o the po i nt w hen Robi nson i ni ti ate d further conve rs ati on a m ounted t o i nt e r r o g a t i o n, s uc h i nter ro gat i on would have v i o l a t e d Edwards and re nd er ed the subsequ en t ini ti ati on and w ai veri nval i d. Bu t whether po lice offi cer s intended to el i ci t a suspect ’ s s tat em ent i s no t, as R obi nson cl ai m s, the s t a nd a r d fo r i nt e r r o g a t i o ns u nd e r the F i fth Am e nd

m en t. R a th er, absen t d irect i nt errogation, the offi cers did notvi ol ate Robi nson’ s F i fth A m en dm ent r i ght t o co uns el u nles s th eys ho ul d ha ve kno wn th atthe p ra c tic es th ey em p loy ed w er e “ re as on ab ly lik e l y t o e licit an inc rim in at in g re s p o n se ” fro m R ob in so n . RhodeIs l andN o. 08

- 4251 11

This d oes not m ean that the polic e offic ers ’ i ntenti s neces sar 7 i l y i r r e l e va nt, a s i t m ig htbe a r o n whe the r the y s ho ul d h a ve know n tha tthe i r ac t i ons wer e l i ke l y t o e l i c i tani nc ri m i nat i ng re sp o n se . In n is , 446 U.S

. at 301- 02 n. 7. v. Innis , 446 U

. S. 29 1 , 3 0 1 (1980). A s this cou rt has i nt er- 7 p re te d th is t es t, th er e is n o v i o l at ion u n les s “ a re as on ab le obj ecti ve obs er verwould have be l i eve d that the l aw en forcem en t officer’s statem en ts to t h e de fend an t w ere re as on ab ly like ly to elic it a ninc rim in at in g re sp on s e .” U nite d State s v. Hendrix , 50 9 F

. 3d 362, 374 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); U ni ted Stat e s v. We s t b r ook, 12 5 F

. 3d 996, 1002 (7th C ir. 1997). H er e, the dist ri ct c ou rtfound that Rob i nson was not d irectly interrogate d b y A gen t Fergu son, and the su rro und i ng f acts do notsugg es t the type o fco er ci ve p ract i ce s th ata r e th e “func ti o na l e qui va l en t” o fi nt err o g a tio n . SeeInnis , 4 4 6 U. S

. a t3 0 1

. Atmo s t, the p ol i ce ca us ed a sl i g htde l ayi n proces singRo bi ns o n o n the re ta i l the ft war r an t due t o a de l ayi n g et tingne cessary i nfo rm ati on fro m Lom bar d. Bu t a shor t del ay

— in th is ca se prob ab l y l es s th anha l fa n h o ur

— is n ot“re as on ab ly l i kel y” to cause a s uspect t o m ake i ncri m i nati ng st ate
m en ts , ev en w ith th e att en d an t ho p e th at a s u s p e c t w ill ac t ag ains t hi s o wn i nt er es ts , i ni ti at e a co nv er sa ti o n, an d i nc r i m i na te hi m se l f

. Nordi d the po l i ce i so l at e Ro bi nson f ro m hi s a tto rney . I n f act, the dive rs i on and del ay did notactual l y depri ve Robi nson of hi s a tto rney ’ s pre sen ce o r a dvi ce . Al l endi d no t at te m pt to a cc o m pan y orf ol l ow Robi nson t o the pol ice stat i on. H e was12 N o. 08

- 4251 equi vo ca l r eg ar di ngwhether he pl anne d t o g o t o the st at i o n a t al l tha t ev en i ng, a s he was no t r epr esenti ng Robi nson o n the re tail-theft char ge, and did not, i n f act, m ake any furthereff or ts on Robinson’ s b ehal fthatev eni ng. The distr i ct c ourtf ound that l ess than an hourafter he l eft his attorne y, R obinson disregard ed his attorne y ’s advi ce a nd i ni ti ate d a conve rs ati on w i th the pol i ce. Giv en thi s fi nd i ng, w e see no re aso n to bel i eve that R obinso n w oul d not hav e g i ven the sa m e s tat em en t h ad he b een t a k e n di r e c t l y t o Lo mba r d. The questi on be f or e us, then, i s wh etherthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s fa c tu al fin d in gs w er e c lea rly err o n eo u s. Inth is case , the d istri ct cou rt hel d a hearing on R obinson ’s m ot i on t o supp re ss and heard t est i m ony f ro m vi rtually ev er y o ne i nv o l ve d wi thhi s ar r es t, pr o ce ss i ng, a nd c o nf es s i o n. Aft e r we i g hingthe c r e dib i l i t y o fthe wi tne s ses an d c o ns i der i ng R obi ns o n’ s hi st o r y o fc o o per at i nga nd othe rwis e v ol untari l y c onver si ng with l aw enf or cem en t, the di str i ct c ourtf ound that th e ag en ts’ st or y, r ather than Robi nson’ s, was cr edib le a nd thatRobi nson had re i ni ti ate d the co nver sat i on that l ed to hi s M i r anda wai ve r a nd s ubs eque ntc o nfes si o n. W he re a factu al fi nd ing rests on th e d istri ct c o urt ’s cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on, i t “ i s enti tl ed to gr eatdefer ence and can vi rtual l y nev erbe cl earer ro r. ” U nited State s v. C la rk, 538 F.3d 803 , 813 (7th C ir. 2008) (ci tations om itted ). R ob in so n co rre c tly st at es t h a t a d ist ric t c ou rtfind in g is c lea rly err on eo u s if it c re d its ex c ee d in gly im p r ob ab le te st i m o ny, s uc h th atwe ar e l eft wi ththe de fi ni te a nd firm co n vic tio n t h a t a m ist ak e h as be en m ad e. Se eBurks ,N o. 08

- 4251 13 490 F. 3d at 565. H e ci tes co ntra dict i ons between w hat A gent Fer guson and Agent Gainer tes ti fi ed about w hat th eyt o l d Ro bi nson c o nc erni ngwhi chpo l i ce s ta ti o n h e w oul d be t ake n to f orbo ok i ng. H e also r efer ences var i ati ons i n the m i nor detai l s describi ng eve nts th at occurr ed atthe W es tc he st erPo li ce De par tment
. Cumul at i ve l y, he cl ai m s th es e i nc o nsiste nc i es made th e o ffi ce r s’ t es ti m o ny ex ceed ingly i nc red ibl e, esp eciall y i n li gh t of R obinson ’s cl ear assert i o n o fhi s r i g htt o c o uns el

. Not i ngtha t th e di st r i c tc o u r tf o u n d th e qu e s t i o n o fwh o i n i t i a t e d t he co nv er sa ti o n “ cl o se , ” Ro bi ns o n i nv i tes u s to r ev i si t th e f actualquesti on a nd r eve rs e. T he typ es of m inor incon sisten cies betw een G a iner’s an d Fergus on’s test im onies th at R obinson i d en tifies are har dl y i nd i c a t i v e o f c l e a r e r r o r . I nd e e d, he c o ul d b e j ust as ske pti calo fwh etherthe age nt s w er e t el l i ng the tr uth i fther e were no i nconsi ste nci es, co nsi deri ng nearl y fi ve y ea r s ha d pa ss ed be twe en th e ar r es t i n 2 00 3 an d the evi dent i a r y h e a r i ngi n 2 0 0 8

. I n a nye v e nt, wh a tR o b i ns on was t o l d a t hi s m o th er ’ s ho us e, and wher e he tho ug ht he w as he adingwhenhe g o t i n the po l i ce c arha ve no be ar i ngo n whe th erhe i ni ti at ed the c o nv er sa ti o n abo ut fi r e a r ms whe n he a r r i v e d a tWes t c he s t e r . I ti s p e r ha ps odd that hav i n g an ticipate d the nee d to re tai n an at to r ne y a nd c l ea r l y a ss er tinghi s r i g htt o c o uns el, Ro bi nso n s o qui ck l y di sr eg ar ded hi s at to r ne y ’ s adv i ce a nd co nfes se d hi s i nv o l ve m en t wi ththe g un t r affi ck i ngc o nspi ra cy. W hatev erdoubt that thi s unusual twis t m ay h a v e raised w as li kely outw eighed by the district cou rt’s re cogni ti on o fRobinso n’s dem onst ra ted pro pensi ty to ch atwi thl aw e nf o r ce m en t ag en ts a nd hi s be li ef tha t he14 N o. 08

- 4251 coul d tal k hi s way o ut o f any so rto ftr oubl e. That the di str i ct c ourtf ound the i ssue cl ose o nl y dem onst ra tes that i t ca re fu lly w ei ghed the evi dence and m ade a re aso n ab le fin d in g. T h e d ist ric t c o u r t b elie ve d th e t es tim ony ofA gents Fe rgu so n a nd Gai ner, and w e r efuse t o seco nd

- guess thatfi nd i ng.

I I I . Concl usio n The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t co m m i t cl ea r error i n fi ndi ng that Robi nson i ni ti ate d conver sat i on with l aw enf or cem ent. There f or e, the l aw enf or cem ent a gents di d not i nt er r o g at e Ro bi ns o n i n vi o l at i o n o fhi s F i fthAm en dm en t r i g htt o c o un s e l, a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur tp r o pe r l y de ni ed Robi nson’ s m oti on to s upp re ss hi s incri m i nati ng st ate
m ents. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

11- 10- 09