The Honor able T an ya W al t on Pr at t, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the  So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 1344 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . J IMM Y B R OWN , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 CR 861

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 30, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, C UDAH Y, C ir cuit Judge, a nd P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s ca se concerns the ways i n w hi ch a defe nd ant m ay a c knowle dge thathe ha s und er sto od and has wai ved hi s M i r anda r i ghts. Offi cer T u rn er G oo d w inarr es te d Jim m y B ro w n for illeg ally2 N o. 11

- 1344 posse ssing a fi re ar m . W hi l e Bro w n w as i n the back of a sq u ad ca r, G oo d w ininfo rm ed B ro w n of h is M i r anda r i ghts. Goodw i n ask ed i fBro w n und er sto od th o s e r i g ht s . Br o wn s l i g ht l y no dde d hi s he a d a nd r esponded “pshh.” Brown pro ceeded to answer s eve ra l o fG o o d wi n ’ s qu e s t i o n s a n d r e q u e s t e d a d e a l

. B r o wn argu es th at a m ere he a d b o b or d ism issi ve n oise i s insu ffi cientto sho w u n d erstan d ing of M i r anda r i g h t s . B r o wn w as l ate r i nfo rm ed ofhi s M i r anda rights an d in t erro gat ed at the s tat i on house. Bro w n m ove d to supp re ss h is p os t-a rre st st at em en ts . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h is m oti on a fteran e vi denti ar y hear i ng. Brown was convi cted aftera j ury tr i al

. On app eal, Bro w n ra i ses t w o i ssues : ( 1) wh etherthe cour t e rr ed i n denyi ng hi s m oti on t o su p p ress and (2 ) wh etherther e was suffi ci ent e vi dence to co n vic t. W h ile B ro w n ’s im m ed iat e re sp on se s t o h is M i r anda warni ngs m ay have been am bi gu ous, def enda nt ’ s a t t e mpt s t o n e g o t i a t e a de a la nd h i s s e l e cti ve answ er i ng o fquesti ons ar e e vi dence thathe unders too d hi s r i g ht s and v o l unt ar i l y wai ve d the m . F o rthe r ea so ns that f ol l ow, w e a ffi rm o n both i ssues . I n Mar ch20 08 , Offi ce r s Go o dwi n and M ar cus M cGr o ne sto p p ed thei r squad car to i nvest i gat e a ga ther i ng o f m eni n fr o nto fa ho us e. The o ffi ce r s sa w on e o fthe men, Br o wn, fl e e fr o m the s c e ne wi th a ha nd g un i n hi s wai stba nd. Af te ra c ha se , the o ffi ce r s ar r es te d Br o wn i n fr o nt o fthe r es i den ce o fGwendo l y n Th o m pso n. The o ffi ce r s ha ndcu ffed Br o wn an d pl ac ed hi m i n the back o fa s qu a d c a r . Go o dwi n r e a d B r o wn hi s r i g ht s un d er M i r anda v . A r iz ona , 3 84 U
. S. 43 6, 47 9 ( 1966 )
. W henN o. 11

- 1344 3

as ke d if h e u n d er st oo d t h o se righ ts , B ro w n bo b b ed h is head and m ade a si ghi ng so und

. Goodw i n i nter prete d th is to m ean “Iknow m y ri gh t s ” a n d b egan to int erro gat e Bro w n. Bro w n i nd i cate d that h e had a gun due to a “ m urder hi t” pu t o n hi s hea d, that he di d not wa n t to go b ac k to j ai land that he would l i ke to str i ke a dealto help hi m sel f

. Goodw i n ask ed w ho in part i cul arfro m the “ 80s babi es” o rder ed th e “hi t. ” Bro w n decl i ned to answ er . Goodw i n and M cGrone then t oo k B ro w n to th e po l i ce s ta ti o n. Atth e s t a ti o n, O ffi c e rMc Gr o n e a g a i n i n f o r me d B r o wn of his rights u nd er M i r anda

. Br o wn r es po nde d “ Ye ah ” w hen ask ed i fhe unders too d h is rig hts. Bro w n al so an swe r ed “Ye ah ” when as k ed i fhe want ed to c o nt i nue spe ak i ng . Br o wn ag ain a dm i tt ed th athe ha d ha d the h a n d g u n b e c a u s e th e “ 8 0 s b ab i e s ” h a d a “ h i t ” o u to n h i m. The i nter vi ew ended shor tl y there afteras Bro w n re q u ire d tre at m en t fo r inj u rie s h e s u st ain ed d u rin g h is f l i g h t fro m th e p olic e. A t t h e h os p ita l, B ro w n to ld Dr. Thom as Baj o that he hurthi s a rm byf al l i ng fro m a fence as he was tr yi ng to ge t a w ay fro m the pol i ce.

I. Browna r g ue s tha th e di d n o tc l e a r l y i nd i c a t e that he underst oo d his M i r anda r i g ht s an d thus di d no t vo l untaril y w aive thos e right s. I n con side ring a district cou rt’s den ialo fa m oti on t o supp re ss, thi s Courtr evi ew s l ega l questi ons deno vo , U nited St at e s v. Jac ks on , 59 8 F
. 3d 340, 34 4 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 131 S. C t. 435 (2010 ), and find i ngs4 N o. 11

- 1344 off act f orcl earer ro r, gi vi ng defer ence to t he di str i ct c ou rt ’s d et er m in at ion s o f cr ed ibilit y. Id. “A factual fin d in g is c lea rly err on eo u s o n ly if, afte r c on sid er in g a ll th e ev i den ce , we ca nno t av o i d o ri g no r e a defi ni te a nd firm convi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en m ade. ” Id. (i nt erna l qu otation an d citation om itted ). The go ver nm ent m ust sh ow that a M i r anda waive r w as “volu nt ary in the sen se th at it w as th e prod uc t of a fre e and del iber ate ch oi ce. ” Berghu i s v. Thom pki ns , 13 0 S. Ct. 22 50, 22 60 ( 2010 ) ( quoti ng N or t h Carol i na v. But l er, 4 4 1 U. S
. 3 6 9 , 37 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )
. A M i r anda “waiv ercan be e i ther express o r i m pli ed. ” U ni t e d S ta te s v. Upt on , 51 2 F
. 3d 394, 3 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t i ng B utler, 441 U .S., at 37 5-7 6). A p er so n m ay t a k e ac tio n s t h at co n st itu te a w aiv er of h is ri ghts “w i thou t express l y s aying so . ” Id. ( quoti ng B utler, 441 U. S
. a t 3 7 3 )
. Co ur t s e v a l ua t e the v o l un t a r y na ture o f a defen dan t’ s ac ti o ns i n th e c o nt ex t o fhi s ag e, e xper i en ce , e duca ti o n, b ac k g r o und, i nt el l ig en ce , t he len gt h of qu es tio n in g a n d oth er circ u m st an c es . Se e, e . g. , Jo hn son v. P o lla rd, 5 59 F
. 3d 74 6, 7 53 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( citin g Gil b e r tv. M e r ch ant, 488 F.3d 780 , 791 (7th C ir. 2007)). L oo kin g a t t h e t ot alit y of t h e c irc u m st an c e, w e fe el it is cl earthatBro w n und er sto od and w ai ved his ri ghts. O ffi cer s g ave M i r anda wa r ning s t o Br o wn t wi c e . A f ter each r eci tat i on, he m ad e itkno w n that he underst oo d th os e rig h ts an d p ro c ee d ed to an sw er qu es tio n s. It is im m aterial th at d efe n d an t d id n ot sign a w aiver f orm orev en utte r a cl earye s in re sponse to the firs t r eci tat i on of M i r anda

. E ven i f th is Cou rt w ere to dism iss B r ow n’s u p w ard no d a s ambiguou s, Br o wn’ s i m m edi at e ac ti o ns c o n-N o. 11

- 1344 5 sti tuted an i m pli ed w aiver. Bro w n has had s ubstanti al ex p er ien c e w ith th e crim in al j u st ice sy st em d u e t o s ix p re vio u s c on v i c tio n s. D es p ite h is e x p er ien c e, B ro w n d id n otreq u es t a law ye r or th at qu es tio n in g c ea se . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Banks , 78 F. 3d 1190 , 1198 ( 7th Cir. 1996 ) ( fi nd i ng waiv erwh er e defendant had “pri orexper i ence w ith law enforcem en t offic ials”) vac at e d on othe rgroun ds by M ills v. U nited Sta tes , 519 U .S
. 99 0 (1 99 6). In st ea d , i t appears that Brown vo l untari l y pr ovi ded i nfo rm at i on i n the hope thathe c oul d m ak e a d ealwith pol i ce. Thus, B ro w n as ke d G o o d w inif th er e w as an yt h in g G oo d w in c o ul d d o fo rh i m a ft e rBr o wn a ns we r e d a fe w que sti ons. I n l i ght o fBrow n ’ s e xperi ence and eage rnes s t o str i ke a dea l, i t i s cl ea rtha t Br o wn unde r st o od hi s r i g ht s an d th ou g h t h e m igh t b en efitfrom w aiv in g t h em . See U nited St at e s v. Upt on , 512 F.3d 394 , 399 (7th C ir. 2008). Brown al so did notanswer a l l o f G oo dw i n’s questi ons, i nd i cating tha t Bro w n und er sto od he had the r i ght t o r emai n s i l en t. Br o wn to l d Go o dwi n th athe was c ar r y i ng the gun to p ro te c t hi m sel fbec ause the “ 80s babi es” had a “ hi t” out on him

. H owever, wh en Goodw i n ask ed Br o wn t o n a me a s pe c i fi c i nd i v i du a lwi thin tha tf acti on w ho ord ered the “h it, ” B row n refus ed to answ er. Th ere c an be an im p lied w aiv er w h er e a d efe n d an t “ se lec tiv ely ch ose not to answ er s o m e of the qu estions that w ere pu t t o hi m . ” Banks , 78 F. 3d at 1198
.
II. Brown al so ar gues th at ther e was i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to c o nv ict h im f o ri l l eg alpo ss es si o n o fafi r ea r m . In c o n-6 N o. 11

- 1344 sid er in g a co n vic tio n for s u f f i c ien c y of e vid en c e, th is Court consi ders the e vi dence i n the l i ght m ostf avo ra b le to th e g ov er n m en t. U nited S ta te s v. C aril lo , 43 5 F
. 3d 767, 775 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. Reve rs ali s a p p ro pri ate “o nl y when the r eco rd contai ns no evi dence . .

. up on wh i ch a ra ti onal tr ie r of fac t c ou ld find gu ilt b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t.” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S t ar ks , 3 09 F.3d 10 17, 1021 (7th C ir. 2002). M e e t i n g t h is s ta n d ar d “p re se n ts a n ea rly ins u rm ou n ta b le h urdl e t o the defendant. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa s s nac ht, 33 2 F.3d 440 , 447 (7th Cir. 2003) (int erna l qu otations om itted ). To co nvi ct forfel on in posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m under 18 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g ) , the j ur y mustfi nd 1 ) the de fen dan t h ad a p rior felon y c on vic tio n ; 2) d ef e n d an t k n ow in gly p ossess ed or received a f irearm ; and 3) th e fi rearm tr a v e l e d in o r affe c te d int er st at e c om m er c e. U nited Sta tes v. Ho dg es , 3 1 5 F
. 3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 9 ( 7t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. B r o wn co nt es ts only th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe e vi den ce a s to the se co nd e l ement
. Howev er, the t es ti m o ny o fa r r es ting offi cer s Goo d w i n and M cGrone, and Brown’s own st ate
men t s t o p o l i c e a nd me di c a lp e r s o nn e lc l e a rl y p r o v i de suffi ci ent e vi dence. Offi cer s Goo dw i n and M cGrone te sti fi ed that they pu l l ed up to invest i gat e a ga ther i ng o fm en o n a s tr eet corner, thatBro w n fl ed the scene c ar ry i ng a gun stuffed i nt o th e wai stba nd o f hi s pan ts an d th at, after chas i ng B ro w n, th e o ffice rs ca u gh t u p w i t h h im an d fou n d h im i n posse ssi on o fa bl ue st eel h an dgun. The tes ti m ony of th e officers w as con sisten t and plau sible an d w as corro b o r a t e d by B ro w n ’s o w n st at em en ts
. Se eSt arks , 30 9 F. 3d at 1025 ( noting that j uri es m ay proper ly c onsi der fl ight as evid en ce of guil t).N o. 11

- 1344 7 B row n m akes four argu m en t s in sup p ort of his insu ffi ci en cyc l ai m , whi cha r e ei th erunc o nv i nc i ngo rpr es en t j ury questi ons. There was am ple ev i dence to co nvi ct Brown
. W hen vi ew i ng the ev i dence i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o the g ove rnm ent, thi s Courtr ej ects defen dan t’s argumenttha t no r at i o na lj ur y c o ul d fi nd beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that Brown kno w i ngl y pos s e s s e d a fi r e a r m. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

12- 30- 11