## 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. 07

- 3726 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OHAN G. H E R ON, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 06 -30 06 8-WDS

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 5, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudge. I n M ay of20 06, Rohan Heron d ecided to r i de shot gun w i th hi s fri end Gigi m an H am i l ton on a cr oss - countr y r oad tr i p. I t i s uncl ear whethe r Her o n i ni ti al l y kne w tha t th is tr i p was f o r the p u rp os e o f t ra ffick in g d ru gs . A c on fid en tia l in for m an t d id k no w, ho wev er, a nd t i pped o ffthe Dr ugEnf o r cement Ad m i ni stra ti o n ( “DEA”)
. The DEA, i n tur n, l etthe Caseyvi l l e Po l i ce Depar tm ent kn ow thata sem i

- tr acto r t r a iler c ar ry in g a sh ip m en t o f m ar ij u an a a n d p os sib ly2 N o. 07

- 3726

coca i ne would be ar ri vi ng i n St
. Clai r County, I l l i noi s. Bas e d o n thi s i nfo r mat i o n, Offi c e r Gr e gHo s p s t opped H am i l ton’ s veh i cl e. A ftera dog a l er ted to the prese nce o fdr ug s, Hos p a nd the K- 9 uni t o ffi ce r s ea r ched the tr uck, discover ed m ar ij uana and coca i ne, and ar re ste d H ami l to n a nd Her o n. H er on was char ge d w i th poss ess i on with the i ntent to dist ribute fi ve orm or e k i l og ra m s o fco cai ne and posse ssi on w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te 10 0 o r m or e k ilog ra m s o f m a r ij u an a, both i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1)
. H e was convi cted an d se ntenced to 12 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Bef o r e tr i al, he fi l ed a m o ti on to su ppr es s st at ement s he h ad m ad e, bu t h is m ot ion w as d en ied in p ar t. D u rin g t ria l, he m ad e a m ot i on f ora conti nuance, wh i ch w as al so denie d. H e no w app ea ls, asser ti ng tha t the co urt’ s deni al ofhi s m oti on f ora conti nuance w as b oth an abuse o f disc re ti on a nd a vi olat i on o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts to d u e p r o c e s s a n d e ff e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o fc o u n s e l

. We agr ee w i th H er on that it w as an abuse o fdi scr eti on t o d en y the m otion fo r a continu an ce. W e the refore re ver se and rem and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I H osp s topped H am i l ton’ s v ehi cl e a t 1 : 30 a. m . o n M ay 10, 2 0 0 6 , a nd Ha mi l t o n’ s a nd He r o n’ s a r r e s t s f o l l o wed sh o r tl y the r ea fte r . Ham i l to n was g i ve n M i r a n d a w ar ni ngs an d i nt errogated the n ex t d a y. A ccord ing to the D E A -6 Reporto fI nvestigat i on f orthi s i nter vi ew , H am i l ton sta ted thathe ha d asked “hi s fri end, Rohan HE RO N , to dri ve w i th him t o C al i f or ni a i n or der t o hel p him dri veN o. 07

- 3726 3 b a c k

. ” Ha mi l t o n d i d n o ta l l u d e t o a n y o th e r tr i ps th e t wo m i ght ha ve tak en. On N ove m ber13 , 20 06, H am i l to n ga ve an addit i onalst ate m ent, with c ounselpre sent, wh i ch w as m em or ializ ed in a n ot h er D E A

- 6 R ep or t. A t t h is m eet i ng, H am i l ton sta ted thatH er on “ w as onl y invol ved in th e t ra n sp or ta tio n of m ar ih u an a o n th e o c c as ion in w hi ch theywere ar reste d i n I l l i noi s” and that “ at fi rs t, H E R O N d id n ot w an t t o p ar tic ip at e in th e t ra n sp or ta tio n .” Ha mi l t o n a dde d, h o we v e r, tha tHe r o n “ a g r e e d t o as si st in th e tra n sp or ta tio n of th e m ar ih u an a fo r $ 2 0,0 00 ,” w hi ch w as hal fo fthe paym ent forthe enti re shi pm ent. On June 1 1, 20 07, the day be f or e Heron’ s t ri al, H am i l ton ch an g ed hi s st o r y . He inf o r m ed the g o ve r nm en t th athe now i ntended to tes ti fy that Heron had been i nvol ved i n t wo pr i o r dr ugt r i ps as wel l

. At 6 : 00 tha t ev en i ng

— that is, as so on as it co u ld

— the g ove rnm en t inf or m ed defe nse counselo fthi s chang e in tes ti m ony. The next m or ni ng, defen se c o uns elmade an oralmot i o n “ to c o m pelthe gov er nm ent t o gener ate a DE A

- 6, ” or, i n the a l ter nati ve, to “c o m pelM r . Ham i l to n t o di sc us s wi thme the t es ti m o ny th athe ha s al r ea dy di sc us se d wi ththe g o ve r nm en t. ” The c ou rtord er ed th e g ov er n m e n t t o m ak e H am ilto n av ailabl e but re fused to c om p elhi m to speakto defense counsel

. Defense cou n sel then m ove d fo r a co nti nuance to i nvest i gat e the new testi m ony. The go ver nm ent di d not o p p o s e th e mo t i o n, b u tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d i t, c o mm enti ng o nl y that i t was 9: 30 i n the m or n in g o ftr i al and that des pit e the co urt’ s s ym pathy “t o the i m m edi acy o f th e ev en ts th at pr o m pte d y o ur M o ti o n atthi s ti m e, ” th e tr i alwoul d no t be co nt i nue d. The c o ur t o ff er ed no furtherexpl anati on o fi ts rul i ng.4 N o. 07

- 3726 H er on had bee n i nter ro gat ed on M ay 10 at 4 a
. m . by S p e c i a l Ag e n t S c o t t a n d T a s k F o r c e O ffi c e r Wad e G u m m e r s h e i m e r . T h e g o v e r n m e n t s a y s t h a t t h is m eet i ng was conducted at H er on’ s request a nd that so m eo ne a t th e F ai r vi ew Hei g ht s Po l i ce De par tment conve yed the re quest to Gu m m er shei m er . H er on asser ts tha tthe r e i s i ns uf f i ci ent e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d t o s up p ort tha t c ont en tion, as G um m ersh eim er did not test ify at t h e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g, an d th e p er so n w h o a lleg ed ly m ade th e p ho ne c a l l wa s n e v e r i de nt i fi e d. T he c r i t i cal poi nt, however, i s u nd i sputed: H er on was notgi ven M i r anda w arn ings at th is int erview
. Th e D E A -6 Rep ort f orthi s m eet i ng n ot es that H er on m ai ntai ned that i t was o nl y i n P ho en i x, Ari zo na , tha t h e be ca m e awar e th athe an d Ham i l to n wer e dr i vingbags ful l o fmar ij ua na acr o s s the c o un t r y . T hi r t y - t wo h o ur s l a t e r o n M a y 1 1, Sco tt and S peci al A gent Rehg be gan a notheri nter ro gat i on ofH er on a t the Fa i rv i ew H eig h ts Pol i ce Depar tm ent, ex cep t this tim e the y d id ad m inister M i r anda w ar ni ngs. Dur i ngthe s ec o nd s es si o n, Her o n s ai d e ssen ti al l y the sa m e th i nga s he ha d a t th e M ay1 0 se ss i o n. H er on fi l ed a m oti on t o supp ress h is s tat em ents f ro m both the M ay 10 and M ay 11 i nter ro gat i ons. The di str i ct c o ur tr ul e d tha tthe May 10 st a t e men t s h a d t o b e s up pr e s s e d, bu tth a tth e M a y 11 st a t e men t s c o ul d b e a dmi t t e d.

II W e begin w ith H eron’s ass ertion t ha t the district cou rt er re d w h en it refu se d to gra n t a co n tin u a n c e a fte r H am ilton changed hi s t est i m ony at the e l eve nth hour. H er onN o. 07

- 3726 5

ar g ue s tha t the c o ur t ’ s r e fus a l t o do s o wa s b o th a n abuse of d i scr eti on a nd a const i tuti onalvi ol ati on. W e nee d not r e a c h the c o ns t i t ut i ona l a r g ume ntu nl e s s we c o nc l ud e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t a buse i ts di sc r et i o n ( th e re lev an t s ta n d ar d of re vie w ) w h en it ac te d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi n c e nt, 416 F. 3d 593, 59 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Thi s co urt has id en tifie d se ve ra l fac to rs th at a d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld co ns i deri n de ci di ngwhethe r t o g r an t su cha mot i o n: 1) the a m o unto fti m e a va i l ab l e f o rpr epa r at i o n; 2 ) the l i kel i hood ofp rej ud i ce fr om deni alo fthe conti nuance; 3) the d efe nd ant’ s r ol e in shor teni ng the eff ecti ve pr epa r at i o n t i m e; 4 ) the de g r ee o fc o m pl ex i tyo fthe ca se ; 5 ) the a va i l ab i l i tyo f di sc o ve r y f r o m th e pr o se cuti on; 6) the l i kel i hood a conti nuance w oul d have sat i sfi ed the m ova nt’ s nee ds; and 7) the inconveni ence an d bur den to th e di st r i ct co ur t an d i ts p en di ng c a s e l o a d. Id. I n H er on’ s ca se, m osto fthes e point s wei gh i n f avo r ofgr anti ng a conti nuance, so m e s tr ongl y s o. Defense cou ns el had no tim e, as a p ractical m atter, t o prep are f o r the dr am atic ch an g e i n Hami l to n’ s te st i m o ny, a s he re cei ved not i ce o nl y fi ftee n h ou rs bef or e the tr i alwas to b e g i n ( F a c t o r 1 )
. Wh i l e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l w a s ab l e t o i mpeach H am i l ton’ s r evi sed st or y, the ne w a c count was m or e than enough to castH er on i n the j ury ’s ey es as an ac ti ve p ar ti ci pan t i n the dr ugt r i p. Ham i l to n’ s pr ev i o us st at ement s ha d po r tr ay ed H er o n a s a r el uct an t par ti ci pan t w ho wa s c o a xe d int o c o nt i nu i ngthe dr ugt r i p wi th o ff e r s ofmo ne y . T he c ha ng e i n t e s t i mon y thu s c r e a t e d a l i k el i ho o d o fp rej ud i ce ( F ac to r 2 )
. Her o n di d no t pl aya ny6 N o. 07

- 3726

ro l e in cre ati ng the ti m e pr ess ure ( Fact or3)
. The pre sence ofthe new te sti m ony add ed so m e co m ple xi ty to th e ca se, as the a l l ege d pr ev i o us t r i ps woul d r equi r e fur th eri nvest i gat i on ( Fact or4)
. Final l y, al though defense counsel in iti al l y wondered w hetherH am i l ton w oul d test i fy with enoug h sp eci fi ci ty about the t i m i ng o fthe tr i ps to al l ow fur th eri nv esti gati o n, Ham i l to n di d i n f ac t te st i fy tha t th e fi r stpr i o r t r i p was “ [ s]ho r tl y a fte r F eb r ua r y ” o f2 00 6 an d th atthe s ec o nd pr i o r t r i p was “ [ s] ho r tl y a fte r tha t. Ithi nk a b o uta mo nth o r s o . ” T hi s n a r r o we d the da t e r a ng e f or the e ar l i ertr i ps and w oul d have pro vi ded a n adequate sta rt i ng poi nt f orthe i nvest i gat i on i nto tr ucki ng r eco rds, re cei pts, and cel l phone r eco rds that Heron w i shed to con d uc t (Factor 6). Onl y t w o fa ct o r s wei g he d a g ains t g r an tinga c o nt i nuance. Fi rs t, the gov er nm ent pr ovi ded al l i nfo rm ati on thatwa s a v a i l a b l e t o i ti mm e di a t e l y a ft e r Ha mi l ton c h an ge d h is t es tim on y, ev en th ou gh it d id n ot form ally cr ea te a DEA-6 Re po r t ( F ac to r 5 )
. I n addi ti o n, de l ay i ng the t ri alm ay have been an i nconve n i ence and a burden to t h e dist ri ct c ourt, ev en tho ugh the j ud ge did not m enti on a ny speci alci rcum sta n ces beyo nd the f act that th e m o ti o n was b eingmade at9 : 30 a . m . o n the morni ng oftr i al( Fact or7)
. W hi l e i t i s t rue t h at the c ourti s e nti tl ed to adhere to the date i t s ets f ortr i al, i t “ cannot have a m yop ic i ns istenc e up on ex p ed iti ou sn ess in th e face of a j usti fi abl e r eas on f ordel ay. ” U nited S t a tes v. Jon es , 45 5 F. 3d 800, 80 4- 05 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( i nter nal quotat i on m arks om itted ). H am i l ton’ s chang ed tes ti m ony w as a cr uci alp iece o f evid en ce th at d efense cou ns el shou ld ha ve ha d an op p or-N o. 07

- 3726 7 tuni ty to devel op. W e ho l d that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on i n denyi ng the m oti on f ora conti nuance.

III W hi l e o ur co n c lu sion w i th r espectto the conti nuance i s e no ugh to requi r e a r e man d, we a ddr e s s He r o n’ s s up p re ss ion arg u m en ts a s w ell, s in c e th is iss u e w ill in ev ita b ly ar i se aga i n i n the proce edi ngs b el ow. H er on arg ues that hi s M ay 11 sta tem ents shoul d have be en sup p re sse d pu rs uant to M i r anda v. Arizona , 3 84 U. S
. 4 36 ( 19 66 ) a nd M issou ri v. Seibert, 542 U .S
. 60 0 ( 2004 )
. In re vi ew i ng a d istri ct cou rt’s ruli ng on a m otion to su p p re s s, th is court r e v i e ws c o n c l u s i o n s o fl a w deno vo and f actualdeter m i nati ons f orcl earer ro r. U nited St at e s v. Figue r oa- Espa na , 511 F.3d 696, 701 (7th Cir. 2007). Ca l l i ngi ta “ c l o s e c a l l, ” the di s t r i c tc o ur ts up press ed the M ay 10 sta tem ents because “the o ffi cer s s h oul d have gi ven the defendant hi s M i r anda w arn ings before en g ag i ngi n a c o nv er sa ti o n wi thhi m . ” W i thr eg ard to the M ay 11 st at em en ts , th e c ou rtap p lied th e t es t s e t f o rt h in J ustic e Kenne dy’ s co nc ur r i ngo pi ni o n i n Seibert

. Thi s t est re quir es that the c ourtsuppres s sta tem ents that ar e a produ c t o fa “two-s tep i nter ro gat i on t echni que [ that i s] used i n a cal cul ate d w ay to und er m i ne the M i r anda war ni ng. ” Seibert, 542 U .S. at 6 22 . Im p or ta n tly , “[t]h e a d m iss ibi l i ty ofpost w ar ni ng st ate m ents shoul d conti nue to be g o ve r ne d b y the pr i nc i ples of [ O r egon v. Els t ad, 470 U
. S. 298 ( 1985 ) ] unl ess the del iber ate two- ste p str ate gy w as em p loy ed .” Id. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und n o i nt en t o n the8 N o. 07

- 3726 part of the DE A age nts to engag e i n a tw o- st ep interr oga tion in an effort to evad e the dicta tes of M i r anda

. I t there

fore analyzed th e i n t errogations un d er Els t ad a nd f o und th at th e statem en ts w ere given volun t aril y after M i r anda wa r ning s h a d b e e n a dmi ni s t e r e d. N o s i ng l e o pi ni o n i n Seibert s p o k e f o r th e C o u r t ; we thus m u st st ri ve to disc er n w hat e xactl y the deci si on re q u ire s. M arks v. U ni t e d S t ates , 43 0 U.S
. 18 8, 19 3 ( 1977 ) provi des the gener alr u le fordeal i ng with thi s k i nd o f o ut co m e: “ W he n a fr ag m en te d Co ur t dec i des a c as e an d no s i ng l e r at i o na l e ex pl aini ngthe r es ul t enj o y s th e ass ent o ffi ve J usti ces, the hol ding ofthe Court m ay be vi ewe d a s th atpo si ti o n t ak enb y tho se M em be r s who concurr ed i n the j ud gm ents on the narr owest gro und s” (in te rn al q u ot at i o n m ar ks om itt ed ). W h en , ho w ev er , a concu rr ence that provi des the fi fth vo te necess ar y t o re ach a m aj or i ty does not p rovi de a “ com m on denom i nator ” f orthe j u d gm ent, the M a rks rul e doe s no t hel p to re sol ve the ul ti m ate questi on. S ee Sc hi ndl e rv. Cl e rk of t he C ircu it C o urt, 71 5 F
. 2d 341, 34 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83) ( decl i ni ng to apply the M a rks rul e t o B aldasar v. I ll inois , 44 6 U.S
. 22 2 ( 1980 ) )
. S ee al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Car r iz a les

- Tole do , 45 4 F
. 3d 11 42 , 1 15 0 ( 10 thCi r. 20 06 ) ( “When th e pl ur al i tya nd co nc ur r i ngo pi ni o ns t ak e di st i nc t ap pr o ac he s, a nd ther e i s n o narr owest o pini on r epres enti ng the co m m on den o m i na to r o fthe Co ur t’ s r ea so ni ng, the n M arks becom es probl em ati c. W e do not apply M arks whenthe various opinion s su p p orting th e C ou rt’s dec is ion are m utual l y e xcl usi ve. ”) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d) ( i nter nal quotat i o n mar k s o mi t t e d) ; A . T . M a ssey C o a l C o . v. M a ssan a ri, 30 5 F. 3d 226, 23 7 ( 4th Ci r. 20 02) (b ec au se it fou n d “n o t h eo re ti-N o. 07

- 3726 9

ca l o ve r l ap be twe enthe r at i ona les e m pl o y ed bythe p l ur al i tya nd J us ti ce Ken ne dy” i n Ea s t e r n En t e rp r i s e s v. A pfel , 52 4 U.S
. 49 8 ( 1998 ) , the cour t di d not co nsi der J usti ce Kennedy’s r eas oni ng to be a narr ower g ro und o r c ont roll ing); K ing v. P a lm er, 95 0 F
. 2d 77 1, 78 1 ( D. C. C ir. 1991 ) ( e n b anc ) ( “But M arks is w or ka b le

— one opi ni on ca n be mean i ng ful l y r eg ar ded as ‘ na r r o we r’ th ana nothe r

— onl y when one o pini on i s a l ogi cal su b se t o f o th er, b r o ad er o pi ni o ns . I n e ss en ce , the na r r o wes t o pi ni o n mustr epr es en t a co m m o n de no m i na tor o fthe C ou rt ’s rea so n in g; it m u st em b od y a p os itio n im p licit ly approve d by atl eas t fi ve J usti ces w ho s up portthe j ud gm en t.”)
. A pp l yi ng that guidance, w e co ncl ud e that the M a rks ru le i s not a pp l i cabl e t o Seibert

. Al tho ugh J us t i c e Ke nn e dy pr o vi ded th e cr uci alfi fthv o te f o r the maj o rity, w e fi nd i t a st ra i n at bestto vi ew hi s co ncurr ence ta ken as a whol e a s the nar r o wes t g r o und o n whi cha maj o r i tyo fthe Cou r t co ul d a g r ee . I t i s tr ue that p arts o fhi s r ea so ni ng co ul d b e co ns tr ue d a s a na r r o wer g r o und tha n the o ne described i n J usti ce S outer ’ s pl ural i ty opi nion , in that J usti ce Kennedy w oul d carv e o ut a sm al l ere x c ep tio n to Els t ad

. On the o therhand, J usti ce Ken n ed y’s i ntent-base d te stwas r ej ec te d b y b o ththe pl ur ali ty opi ni o n a nd the d isse nti n Seibert

. Id. at6 11

- 12 ( “T he thr es ho l d i ss ue when i nt er r o g at o r s question fi r sta nd war n l at eri s th us w hetheri t w ou ld be re aso nabl e t o fi nd thati n thes e c ircum sta nces the warni ngs c oul d functi on e ffecti vel y a s M i r anda r equi re s. ”) ( So uter, J
. , pl ural i ty opi ni on) ( i nter nal q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); id. at 624 (“T he plura li ty’s rej ection of an inten t-based test i s also, in m y vie w , c or-10 N o. 07

- 3726

re c t
. ” ) ( O’ Co nn o r, J
. , di s s e nt i ng )
. Al tho ugh i t i s ha rd to be sure , i t i s possibl e that J usti ce Breye r agr ee d with Ju st ice K en n ed y ’ s f oc u s o n int en t. Id. at 618 ( “Ial so ag re e w ith Ju st ice K en n ed y’s op in ion ins o f a r a s it is consi ste nt w ith [ the frui ts] approa ch and m ake s cl ear that a g ood -faith e xcepti on a pp l i es. ”)
. Counti ng J usti ce B r e y er i n th e Ke n n e d y c a mp, we a r e l e ftwi th o n l y t wo Ju st ice s w h o s u p p or t t h e in te n t-b as e d t es t. T h is is o b viousl y no t the “co m m on denom i nator ” that M a r k s w as tal ki ng ab out. I n a s i tu at i o n l i k e th i s, i t i s r i sky t o a ss um e th atthe Court has a nnounced any part i cul arr ule o fl aw , si nce th e pl ur al i tya nd di ss en t appr o ac he s g arne r ed o nl y f o ur vot es each. S ee U ni t e d St at e s v. Alc an Alu m i num C orp. , 31 5 F. 3d 179, 18 9 ( 2d Cir

. 20 03) ( “W hen i t i s no t pos sibl e t o disc ove r a single st andard that l egi ti m ate l y c onst i tutes th e narrow est grou nd f or a d e c is ion on th at issue, there i s th e nn o l a w o fth e l a n d b e c a u s e n o o n e s t a n d a r d c o mm ands the s up porto fa m aj or i ty ofthe Suprem e Cour t. ”) ; A nk er En e rgy Co rp . v . Co n s o l i d a t i o n Co al Co. , 177 F. 3d 161, 170 ( 3d C ir. 1999 ) (“[I ]n case s w he re ap p ro a c h e s differ, no p articu lar stan d ard i s bind ing on an i n feri or court be ca us e no ne ha s r ec ei ve d the s uppo r t o f a m aj o r i tyo fthe Sup rem e C ou rt .” ). I n th e case of Seibert, the o nl y thi ng we k n o w f o r s u r e i s th a t a t l e a s t s e v e n me mb e r s o ft he Court rej ecte d an i ntent-base d app ro ach and acce pted som e kind ofexce pti on t o Els t ad, ev en i fthe sco pe ofthat exceptio n re m ai ns uncl ear . S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rodr iguezPre ci ado , 399 F.3d 11 18 , 114 1 (9 th C ir. 20 05 ) (B er zo n, J. , d issent ing).N o. 07

- 3726 11 U nd er thes e circum stan ces , w e m us t con tinu e to w ork w i th the autho ri tat i ve sour ces that re m ai n avai lab le to us. U p untilnow, w e hav e no t y et set tl ed on a defi ni ti ve appr o ac h t o war d the pr o bl em addr es se d i n S e i bert

. Our fi r sta na l y si s o ftha t dec i si o n i n U nited Sta tes v. Stew a rt, 38 8 F. 3d 1079 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , p roduced a seto fte ntati ve sta tem ents. W e s ai d that
a t leastas to deli be rate tw o- ste p i nter ro gat ion s in whi ch M i r anda w ar n i n g s are int en tio n ally w ith h eld u n til aft er th e s u sp ec t c on fes se s, th e c en tr al v olu n ta rine ss inq uiry of Els t ad ha s b e e n r e pl a c e d b y a p r e s umpti ve rul e o fexcl usi on, subjec t to a m ult i f acto r tes t f orchange i n ti m e, pl ace, and ci rcum sta nces f rom the fi r s ts t a t e men tt o the s e c o nd

. Id. a t 10 90 ( fi r ste m pha sis ad ded)

. W e al so e xpr es se d the opi ni on that “ E lsta d a pp ears t o h a v e s ur v i ve d Seibert .” Id. (em p h a s i s a d d ed ). In a lat er ca se , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pet e rs on , 414 F. 3d 825 ( 7th Cir
. 2005 ) , w e did not re ach th e qu e s t i o n h o w Sei be rt w ou ld app l y, but w e o bser ved that th e intent-base d testwas shar ed by onl y J usti ces K en n ed y a n d B re ye r. Id. at8 28
. W e th ende l ve d i nt o the rationale of Seibert : The thi nki ng behi nd thi s i s that a suspectwh o has be en in d u c ed to m ak e a s t a t e m e n t m ay se e litt le p oin t in cl amm i ng u p a fte r war ni ng s ha ve b ee n g i ve n; he m ay th ink tha t the cat i s out of th e bag. M oreover, el i ci ting a state m ent b ef or e the suspecthas been info r m ed o fhi s r i g ht s i m pl i es tha t th e war ni ng s an d ri ghts ar e char ades, wh i ch r educe s th e chance that the s uspect wil l i nvoke hi s co nsti tuti onalpri vi l ege .12 N o. 07

- 3726 Id. Thi s r eas oni ng appear s t o be defe nd ant- f ocuse d. I fthat i s s o , the n i tma y b e i n s o me t e ns i o n wi th o urde ci si on i n Stew a rta nd J us ti ce Ken nedy ’ s i nt en t-ba se d t es t, a s th e l att erco nver ts M i r anda ’ s f o cus fr o m a c o nc ern wi ththe defe nd ant’ s know l ed ge ofhero w n ri ghts i nto w hat l oo ks m or e l i ke a r ule desi gned to curb abuse by the pol i ce. W e hav e no need her e t o re sol ve once and fo r al l wh at rul e o r rul es gov er ni ng two- ste p i nter ro gat i ons can be d i s t i l l e d fr o m Seibert

. Thi s i s be c au se H er on’ s M ay 11 st at ement s woul d b e admi ss ibl e unde r a ny t es t o ne m i ght e xt ra c t. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthattho se state m en ts w ou ld be adm issible un d er Justice K en ne d y’s i ntent-base d test

. The di str i ct c ou rt fo u n d as a f act that ther e was “no ev i dence thatthe office rs , duri ng the def en da nt ’ s fi r s t s t a t e men t, ha d a ny i nt e nt o r s t r a t egy to de l ib e r a t e l y wi thh o l d M i r anda wa r ning s i n an a t t e mpt to g etthe de f en dan t to c o nfes s.” Ina l l l i k el i ho o d, the cour t was r el yi ng o n Sco tt’ s t est i m ony that H er on had re quested the m eet i ng with the o ffi cer s a nd thatS cot t and Rehg ass um ed that H er on had al re ady b ee n gi ven M i r anda w ar ni ngs. H er on a rgues that the court’ s fi nd i ng w as cl ear l y e rr oneous. H e po in ts o ut thatS cot t t est i fi ed that she had be enwi ththe DEA f o r ni ne - an d- a- ha l fy ea r s, a nd he ar gu es th at th e c ou rtco u ld h av e in fer re d im p er m iss ible i nt en t di r ec tl y f rom th e f ac t th ats he f ai l ed to t ak e th e preca uti on o fadm i ni ste ri ng M i r anda w arn ings before tal ki ng to H er on o n M ay 10. W hi l e th i s m ayha ve b ee n a po ss ibl e i nfer en ce , the dist ri ct c ourtwas not com pel l ed to m ake it. W e ca nnotN o. 07

- 3726 13 fi nd tha t th e co ur t co m m itted cl ea r e r r o r i n c r edi ting Sco t t ’ s t e s t i mon y tha t he r l a c k o f pr e c a ut i o n was a n honestm i stake . The c ourtwas enti tl ed to co ncl ud e that it was re aso nabl e f or her to ass um e that H er on w ou ld ha ve been g i ve n M i r anda w ar n in gs u p on arr es t. T h er e is al so a quest i on wh etherthe M ay 10 m eet i ng was cal l ed i n respons e to Her o n’ s r eque st, o r i fi ns te ad so m eo ne f ro m the Fai rv i ew H ei ghts P olic e Depart m ent r equeste d th e m ee ting . W e dec l i ne t o e ng ag e in sp ec ul at i o n abo ut w hetherthe pol i ce o r H er on i ni ti ate d the m eet i ng, because nothi ng turns o n i t. Law enf or cem ent c annot be expected to ke ep tr ack ofthe i denti ty ofever y per son w ho m ake s a phone ca l l o n beha lf o f another pol i ce departm ent. W e also see no reason to d istu rb the district cou rt’s co nc l us i o n tha t H er o n g av e th e M ay1 1 st at ementv o l unta r i l y . As i t no te s, “ [ i ] t i s cl ea r tha t Age ntRe hgg av e th e defe nd ant hi s M i r anda w ar ni n gs befor e he questi oned hi m , a nd tha t th e defen dan t appe ar ed to unde r st an d thos e warni ngs, but chose to waive hi s r i ghts and gave hi s st atem en t to Age ntRe hg

. ” H er o n n o te s th atRe hg di d no t o bt ain a wri tt en M i r anda wai ve r, b ut thi s al o ne does n ot m ake H er on’ s s tat em ent invol untary
. Because th e M ay 11 sta tem ents w er e g i ven v ol untari l y, they woul d b e admi ss ibl e unde rthe i nt er pr et at i o n o f E ls t ad f avo re d by the Sei be rt d iss en te rs as w ell. Fi nal l y, H er on’ s s tat em ents w oul d be a dm i ss ibl e under the a pp ro ach o fthe Sei be rt plurali ty
. F o r the m , the cen tral in q u ir y i s w he th er, gi ven the tota li ty of th e circ u ms t a nc e s , th e mi d s t r e a m M i r anda w arn ings w ere14 N o. 07

- 3726 effective. Th e d istri ct cou rt m us t w e ig h sev eral f acto rs i n deter m i ni ng eff ecti venes s: [ 1] the c o m pl et en ess an d det ai l o fthe que st i o ns a nd an sw er s i n the fi r str o und o fi nt er r o g at i o n, [ 2] the o ve r l appingcont en t o fthe t wo s ta te m en ts , [ 3] the ti m i nga nd setting o fthe fi r sta nd the s ec o nd, [ 4] the conti nuity o fpol i ce per sonnel, and [ 5] the degre e t o whi chthe i nt er r o g at o r ’ s que st i o ns tr ea te d the seco nd r ound as co nti nuous w i th the fi rs t. Seibert, 54 2 U.S
. at61 5. W e a cknowle dge thatso m e o f th es e (u n w eig h te d ) fac to rs s u gg es t t h at th e c ou rtsh ou ld h av e excl ud ed H er on’ s M ay 11 sta tem ents. There was suffi ci ent o ver l ap bet w een th e M ay 10 and M ay 11 sta tem ents ( and l i kel y the q u esti ons that el i ci ted the st ate
m en ts ) su c h t h at th e o ffice rs inv olv ed d id n ot th in k it ne ce ss ar y t o pro duce a no th erDEA-6 Re po r t f o r the se co nd i nt er r o g at i o n ( F ac to r s 1, 2 , & 5)
. The i nt er r o g at i o ns al so occur re d i n the sam e l oca ti on, the Fai rv i ew H ei ghts Police D ep ar tm ent ( Fact or3)
. There was so m e but not com ple te conti nuity o fpol i ce per sonnel

— Sco tt w as p resen t at both i nt errogations ( Fact or 4). T h e r e ma i n i n gf a c t o r s u p p o r t s a d mi s s ib i l i t y . T h i r t y - t wo ho ur s el aps ed be twe enthe fi r sti nt er r o g at i o n an d the seco nd ( Fact or3)
. This co ntra sts with the 20

- m i nute br ea ki n Seibert

. Id. at 605. W hi l e thi s i s a c lose ca se, nothin g in the Seibertpl ural i ty opi ni on co nd em ns us t o a m echani calco unti ng o fi tem s o n a l i st. W e m ust i nstea d ex ami ne e ac h o ne o fthe m f o r the l i g ht it thr o ws o n the cen tral inq uiry: w he t h e r the later M i r anda warni ngs w er e e ff ecti ve. H er e, the l engthyte m pora l se parat i onN o. 07

- 3726 15 between H er on’ s fi rs t a nd se cond encounte rs per suades us tha t th e di st r i ct co ur t di d no t er r when i t f o und tha t th e l ate r w ar ni ngs s er ved thei r i ntended purpose

. The M ay 11 st at ement s th us w ou ld be adm i ss ibl e unde r the Sei be rt pl ur al i ty ’ s ap p roach. Any way we l o o ka t th e probl em , i n sum m ar y, we con c lu de that the di str i ct cour t co rr ectl y c onc lu d ed thatH er on’ s M ay 11 sta tem en ts w er e a d m iss ible . Th ey m ay th er efo re be u se d in any furtherpro ceedi ngs c onducted by the di str i ct c ourt
. * * * Forthes e r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the cour t’s j ud gm ent o f con v i c t i o n a nd R EMA ND f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

5- 5- 09