## 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. 10

- 3894 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . J OHN W YS INGER, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09- CR-30159- MJ R

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan,Ju dge
.
A RGUED S EPT EMBER 8, 2011

— D ECIDED J UNE 22, 2012

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NERa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A j ury convi cted J ohn W ysi nger on o ne co unt ofco n sp ira c y t o dist ribute a nd poss ess wi th i nt e ntt o di s t r ib ut e c o c a i ne , i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S

. C. §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 6 a n d 8 5 1 ; a n d o n e c o u n to fa i d i n ga nd abet ti ng poss ess i on w ith i ntent to dist ribute c oca i ne, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U

. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 85 1, and 18 U

. S. C. § 2 . At tr i al, the j ury tw i ce v i ew ed a v i deo o fW y sing er ’ s i nt er r o g at i o n b y a n a g ent of the Dr ug2 N o. 10

- 3894

For t h e sake ofcl ari ty, w e will refer t o the defe nd ant as 1 “W ysi nger” an d t o h is brother as “Tryd

. ” At tr ial, W ysi nger c hal l enge d D EA Spec i al Agen tM i ke Rehg ’ s i dent i fi c at i on of his voice o n various pho ne cal ls i nvo lving a pers on nam ed “J ohn ” o r “Coo l

. ” W he n di s c us s i ng the c hal lenge d phone calls, w e w ill use tho se na m es. Enf o r ce m en t Age nc y ( “DEA”). W y sing erc ha l l en g ed th e ad m i ssi on o fthe vi deo o n the gr ounds that the M i r anda war ni ngwas i na dequa te a nd mi slea di ng, a nd tha t th e ag en t co nt i nue d t o i nt er r o g at e hi m a ft erhe c l ea r l y a nd un e q u i v o c a l l y i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l

. O n a ppeal, he a gai n chal l enges the adm iss ion o fthe vi deo. W e a gr ee that the v i deo s houl d have b een s up press ed and that t h e er ro r w as not harm l ess . A ccor dingl y, w e vacat e W ysi nger ’ s convi cti on and r em an d f or furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I. W ys in ge r c am e to th e att en tio n of th e D E A as th e re su lt ofa n i nv e s t i g a t i o n i nt o a dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngo pe r a ti on between East St

. Loui s, I l l i noi s, and Chi c a g o . The i nvest i gat i o n b e g a n whe n a c o nfi de nt i a l i nfo r man tt ol d th e DE A that Se basti on Robinson, an EastS t. Loui s r esi dent, was d istribu t ing d rugs . Th e D E A began to surveil Robins on’s r e s i d e n c e . O n D e c e mb e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , a g e n t s f o l l o we d t wo va ns l ea ving Ro bi ns o n’ s r es i den ce . At th e di r ec ti o n o fthe DEA , l o ca l p ol i ce o ffi ce r s st o pped th e va ns . One o fthe van s w as d riven by T ryd W ysinger, J ohn W ysinger’s bro ther

. The ag ents sei zed approxi m at el y $ 54, 000

1 i n cash f ro m a sm al l bac kpack f ound in the v an. OtherN o. 10

- 3894 3 p as se n ge rs in t h e v an inc lu d ed R ajd e l L au re n c e, a w om an and a chil d. The adultpasse nger s i n the van cl ai m ed i gnor ance about the o w ners hi p o f the m oney and how i t ca m e t o be in the van. W i thin t h e n ex t ten days, a perso n purp or ti ng to be J ohn W ysi ngerl eft a te l eph o ne mess ag e f o r DEA Spe ci alAge ntM i ke Re hg re gar ding the $ 54, 00 0. A gent Rehg r etur ned the ca l l after the ho l i days a nd r eco rded the conve rs ati on. A per son an swe r i ngt o the n am e “ J o hn” t o l d Age ntRe hgtha t he pl ac ed th e mo n e y i n th e v a n a n d th a tn o n e o fth e o c cup an ts kn ew i t w as t h ere. H e exp lai ne d that he borro w ed $45 , 000 f ro m h is boss and that he and hi s fi ancée contr ibuted $10 , 000 m or e. The m oney w as t o be use d to re h ab h i s m othe r’ s ho use. J ohn i denti fi ed the othe r occ u p an ts o ft h e v an as h is b ro th er (T ry d ), his co u sin (R ajd el L au re n c e), h is gr an d m ot h er an d h i s s on . H e t old th e ag en t t hat he di d no t wantthe m t o kno w tha t th e m oneywas i n the van, and pla nned to t el l hi s m othe r to r e t r i e v e th e mo n e y o n c e th e v a n a r r i v e d a th e r h o me i n Texas. J ohn and A gent Rehg b rie fl y di scusse d w hat wo ul d h a pp e n ne xtt o the mo ne y b e f o r e the c a l l e nd e d. Aft era c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t purc ha se d c r ac kc o ca i ne f ro m S ebas ti on Robinson i n Feb ruar y 2 009, l aw enf orcem ent o ffi ci al s a rr ested Robi nson a nd se ar ched hi s ho m e. The DEA r ec o ve r ed $3 5, 00 0 i n ca sh, two fi r ea r m s, and sm alla m ou nt s of coca ine an d m arij ua na from Rob inson ’s hom e. Robi nson s ubsequentl y a gr eed to co oper ate with th e DEA i n i ts i nv es ti g at i o n. Ro bi ns o n tol d Age nt Rehg thathe obtai ned c oca i ne fro m W ysi nger( w hom R ob in so n kn ew b y th e n ick n am e “ C oo l”) in C h ica go , sold i t in the East S t. Loui s a re a, and then pai d W ysi nger4 N o. 10

- 3894 f ro m the proce eds. Robi nson said t h at he and Keith H ol m es, ano therEast St

. Lou is deal er, ea ch owed W y s i ng e r a pp r o xi mat e l y $ 2 1 , 0 0 0 a nd tha tthe mo ne y seized from Rob inson ’s hom e be lo ng ed to W ysinger. A fterpro vi ding Robi nson with re cor ding equi p m en t, A gent R eh g a ske d Robi nson t o ar ra nge a m eet i ng with H olm es to del i ver$4 2, 000 to Dem psey I ver y, a cour i er bel i eve d to be work i ng f orW ysi nger . Law enf or cem en t o ffi ce r s th en s to pped th e ca r o n the way t o the m eet i ng and se i zed the m oney . A fterthes e l arge sei zure s o fcas h by pol i ce o ffi cer s, c o nt a c ta mon gWys i ng e r, R o b i ns o n, Ho l mes a nd o ther parti ci pants sl owed f orse ve ra l m onths as they bec am e c on c er n ed ab o u t th e a p p ar en t in ve st iga tio n . In M ay 2009 , the gr oup bega n tal kin g aga i n. Robi nson metwi th Tr y d a nd de t e r mi ne d tha t Wy s i ng e r wa s r e a dy to arr an ge an ot h er co c ain e d eliv er y t o t h e E as t S t. L ou is ar ea. On M ay 26, 20 09, the DE A a sk ed Robi nson t o ca l l W y sing ert o s ee if an y c o ca i ne was a va i l ab l e. The DEA r ec o r ded th e ca l l

. Age ntRe hgi nterp r et ed th e cry pti c co nver sat i on a s W ysi ngerte l l i ng Robi nson that he was tr yi ng to o btai n so m e co cai ne an d w ou ld l et Robi nson know wh en he w as abl e to do so

. Robi nson confi rm ed that i nterpret ati on i n hi s o w n tes ti m ony at tr i al

. The next day, Robinso n to l d A gent Rehg that W ysi ngerand Tryd had c ontacted hi m to r epor t that a sh ip m en t w as o n i ts w ay to E as t St . L ou is a n d w ou ld be there withi n hours

. A fteres tabl i shi ng sur veill an ce at Robi nson’ s ho m e, o ffi cer s were abl e t o i denti fy a van occup ied by Try d and an unidenti fi ed w om an. Local offi cer s s topped the v an and dis cove re d a ki l ogr am o fN o. 10

- 3894 5

coca i ne. Try d and the w om an w ere t ake n to the pol i ce st at i o n f o r que st i o ni ng . Two ag en ts the n metwi thRo bi nso n so th at an y s u b se q u e n t c alls w ith W ys in ge r c ou ld b e r e c o r de d. The age nts r eco rded thr ee shor t ca l l s be tw een Ro bi nson a n d Wy s i n g e r o n Ma y 2 7, e a c h i n t e r p r e t e d b y Age nt Rehg and Robi nson a t t ri al

. In t h e fi rs t ca l l, W ysi nger as k ed ifRo bi ns o n h ad r ec ei ve d the s hi pm en t an d Ro bi nson sai d he had not. W ysi ngeral so ask ed h ow m uch m o ne y Ro bi nson w ou l d b e g i vingTr y d o n de l i ve r y a nd Robi nson i nd i cat ed $4 000. I n the seco nd cal l, W ysi nger ask ed aga i n ( i n coded l anguage ) i fthe coca i ne had be ende l ivered and Robi ns o n i ndi ca te d i t ha d no t. Ro bi nson then as ked i fi t was i n a white van and i nd i cate d th at local p oli ce h ad stop p ed a w h ite va n a sh ort di st an ce fr o m hi s ho m e. Ro bi ns o n t o l d W y sing erhe w ou ld d riv e p as t t h e s c en e t o s ee if it w as T ry d ’s v an . In th e t h ird ca ll, th e t w o c on tin u ed to d i s c u s s th e t ra ffic st o p o fthe v an . W hen ag ents on the sc ene saw t h at the van c am e fro m th e di recti o n o fHol m es ’ ho us e, the y de ci ded to s ee i fthe va n h ad fi r stde l i ve r ed co ca i ne t o Hol m es . The y f o und H o l m es s ta ndi ngo n the s tr ee t a ha l fa b l o ckf r o m the van w atch ing t he police i nv estigation. A fter being arr e s t e d , Ho l me s a g r e e d t o c o o p e r a t e wi th a u th o r i t i e s . As th e ag en ts tal ked to hi m , H ol m es’ phone be gan r i ngi ng. H o l m es i ndi ca te d tha t W ysingerwas c al l i nga nd tha t he needed to answ er . T h e o ffi cer s a l l owed hi m to answer the phone and r eco rded the cal l

. H ol m es and W ys in ger spoke abo ut the sto p o fthe van. A fterthe cal l, H ol m es6 N o. 10

- 3894

con sen ted to a search of his hou se an d police offi cers re cove re d a hal fki l ogr am o f c ocai ne thatH ol m es a dmi t t e d h a d j us tb e e n de l i v e r e d b y T r y d. The ne xtmor ni ng, a gen ts r ec o r ded an o th erpho ne ca l l b etwee n H o l m es a nd W y sing er . W y sing ers o ug ht H o l m es ’ adv i ce o n l awy er s he co ul d hi r e to r epr es en t Tryd. A few days l ate r, the age nts a rr anged f or H ol m es to c all W ysi ngerag ai n, i n or der t o begin to ex pl ain t o h im thathe woul d no t be abl e to pa y f o r the h alf-k ilog ra m of co c ain e t h at h ad be en se ize d fr om h is ho m e. Hol m es t o l d W y sing ertha t ag en ts ha d s ei ze d the coca i ne fro m a house w here he s tored it. W ysi nger w anted to v isi t the house hi m sel f, and so the age nts all owed Hol m es t o s etup a m ee tingwi thW y sing er. W y sing ermet H o l m es i n a li quors to r e par k i ngl o t an d tr ansfer re d to H ol m es’ tr uck. The ag ents l ate r sto pp ed H ol m es’ tr uck and ar re ste d W ysi nger . The ag ents al so ar re st ed R ajd el L au re n c e , w h o w as in t h e v eh icle in whi chW y sing erha d a r r i ve d. Al l wer e tr an spo r te d t o the East S t. Loui s pol i ce depar tm ent. On J une 1 , 2 00 9, W y sing erwas i nt er r o g at ed byAge nt Rehg and W ade Gum m er shei m er, a Fai rv i ew H eig h ts po l i ce o ffi ce r wh o wor k ed o n a DEA ta skf o r ce . The vi deo r eco rdi ng o fthe i nter ro gat i on was pl aye d tw i ce f o r the j ur y dur i ngW y sing er ’ s tr i al, o nc e dur i ngthe gov er nm en t’s case - i n-c hi ef, and once du ri ng del iber ati ons at the r equ est ofthe j ury. The i nter ro gat i on t oo kN o. 10

- 3894 7

Duri ng a br ea k whenthe ag en t s wer e out o fthe r oom an d 2 W y sing er w as alo ne , he exclaim e d , “ S h i t! It’ s ho t in this m otherfucker! ” V ideo at 13: 26. W ysi nger app eared unaw are t hatth e me e t i n g a n d th e b r e a k we r e b e i n g v i de o t a p e d. I n t he opening m om ents o f the video, O ffic er Gum m ers heim er c an be se en w iping s w ea t from his f orehead w ith his s hirt sl eeves . V ideo at 12: 54. A l l c i t a t i o n s t o th e v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n a r e t o th e t i me 3 ind ex d ispla y ed on the v id eo , w hich w as E xh ib it 21 at tria l. W he n the vi deo was pl aye d for the j ur y dur i ng the t ri al, the c our tr epo rt er at t em pt ed to tr ans c ribe the c onve rs at i on, an d w e w i ll occa sion ally cite to the trial tran scrip t as w ell. Bec aus e ofissu es with the s ound qual i t y, m any par t s ofthe vi deo ar e di ffi c ul tt o h ea r, an d t he t ri al t ra nscr ip t has m any (co n tin u ed ...) pl ac e i n a s m al l, unc o m f o r tabl y war m r o o m c o nt aini ng 2 a r e c t a n g u l a r t a b l e , th r e e c h a i r s a n d a wa l l c l o ck

. The tabl e was sm al l eno ugh thatadult s s i tti ng o n opposi te sid es w ou ld like l y b u m p kn ee s if th ey p u lled th eir ch airs up to i t. T h e m icroph one record ing the i nt err o g at i o n i s no t vi sibl e o n the vide o . Age nt s Re hga nd Gu m m er shei m erente re d the r oo m to gether and a br i ef d isc u ss ion en su ed ov er w h ich c ell p h on e in a p l a st ic bag be longed to W ys in g e r. A han d cu ffed W ysinger, w ho w as seat ed alone in the room before t h e officers ar r i ve d, po i nt ed o uthi s pho ne wi th o uthe si ta ti o n. A ge n t R eh g t h en b rie fly to ok a c all on h is ow n ce ll ph o ne , a nd a s s o o n a s h e h un gu p, Wys i ng e r s a i d, “ Do In eed a l aw yerbefor e we st ar t t al ki ng?” Video at12 : 54; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 10 4. Age nt Re hg r epl i ed, “Wel l, we’ r e g o i ng 38 N o. 10

- 3894

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 i ndi c at i ons of“i nau di bl e. ” W i th a few c ar eful r ev i ews ofthe tap e, w e h a v e been able t o fil l in s om e ofthe parts thatw ere ina udi bl e t o the c our tr epo rt er duri ng the t ri al

. I n a ll relev an t resp ects, ou r v e r sio n o f the tap ed interr og atio n is ful l y c ons i s t en twith the di s t rict cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs r eg ar di ng whatwas s ai d duri ng the i nt er ro gat i on. to tal k about that. ” Vi deo at 12 : 54. H e then i ntro du ced him self an d Offi cer G um m ersh eim er and told W ysin g e r, “Mak e no b o ne s abou t i t. Yo u’ r e unde r a r r es t. Imean, m ake no bones abo ut i t. ” Vi deo at12 : 54; R. 28 7, Tr. at 104. Aft era b r i efi nt er l ude wher e W y sing er co m pl aine d abo ut the t i m i ng o fhi s a rr est, Agent Rehg bega n to r ead W ysi ngerhi s M i r anda r i g ht s f r o m a c ar d tha t the a g en t pul l ed f r o m hi s wal l et
. Abo utha l f way thr o ug h the re ading, the age nt bega n to scr atch the back of hi s n ec k. W he n he r e a c he d the wor ds, “I fy o u c a n’ ta ff o r d a l aw yer, o ne wil l be appoint ed f oryo u bef or e w e a sk an y que st i o ns . Do y o u un der st an d .

. . , ” A gen t Re hg sl apped the tabl e l oudly, st ar tl i ng W ysi nger . Vi deo at 12 : 55; R. 287, Tr. at 105. The age nt sai d that he ha d felt som eth ing craw li ng on his ne ck. In resp ons e to Reh g’s questi ons, W ysi n ge r sai d he had previ ousl y b een ar re ste d fo r “pettyshi t, ” that he did n ot have a hi gh schoo l o r col l ege educati on, but thathe unders too d hi s r i ghts. A gent Rehg the n beg an to descr ib e to W ysi ngerwh at th e agents a l r ea dy k ne w ab o utthe fl o w ofmone y a nd c oc ain e b et w ee n C h ica go , E as t St . L ou is a n d T ex as . In r e s po ns e t o Ag e ntR e hg ’ s c o mm e nt s , Wys i ng e r i nd i c a tedN o. 10

- 3894 9 that he kne w the pol i ce were watchin g hi m and had st op p ed p eo p le h e k n ew , an d h e s u rm ise d th at “ K e ith,” pr es um ab l y Kei thHol m es , ha d b ee n wo rki ngwi ththe p olic e. A fte r A ge n t R eh g t old h i m t h a t o n e o f h is as soci ate s l ost$2 0, 000 du ri ng a pol i ce s top i n Texas, W y sing erg r ew i m pat i ent a nd s ai d, “ Gets tr ai g htt o the p oin t, M ike . Ij u st d o n ’ t w an t t o ge t fu c ke d in t h e d ea l. You know w hat I ’ m sa yi ng?” Video at 12: 58; R. 28 7, Tr. at 10 7. A ge n t R e h g th en ex p lain ed th at W ys in ge r c ou ld coo perat e o r be c h ar ge d w i th co nspir acy to dist ribute coca i ne. A fterdenyi ng per sonali nvol vem ent, W ysi nger the n a s k e d i fAg e ntR e hgc o ul d h e l p hi s brot he r, T r y d. A gent Rehg in d i cate d that the U ni ted S tat es A tto rney m i gh t b e a men a b l e t o he l pi ng Tr y d i n e xc ha ng e f or W ysi nger ’s coo perat i on. A gent Rehg sa i d he coul d not m ake any guar antee s, th at charg es w oul d not be dr o pped buttha t W y sing erc o ul d g eta s en tencing b re ak for h im se lf an d h i s b r ot h er if h e c oo p er at ed . A lthou g h muc h o fwh a tWys i ng e r s a i d n e xtwa s g a rb l e d, p art of his state m en t w as clear: Th e r e ’ s a w hol e l o to fmo the r fuc k e r s i n Te xa s Ido n o t l i k e. Y ou kn ow w h at I’m sa yin g? A n d I te ll m othe rfucker s, i n thi s g am e, you don’t fuck with thos e peopl e, ‘ cause you m ake enem i es. You know w hat I ’ m sa yi ng? Y ou a l w ays ke ep the m othe rfucker ha ppy i fy o u do i ngthi s ty pe of sh it, ‘ ca us e th e m othe rfucker com e ba ck to haunt yo u. You kno w w hat I ’ m sa yi ng? V ideo a t 13 : 00 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 10 9. Age ntRe hgthe n e xpl ained tha t, i fW y sing erwi sh ed to c o o per at e, he w oul d have t o tel l the age nts what he had be en doi ng,10 N o. 10

- 3894 that A gent Rehg would then speak to the U. S. A tto rneyto deter m i ne wh etherW ysi ngerwould be re l eas ed that day. W ys in ge r ag ain ex p re ss ed d iss at isfa c tio n th at h is br o th erha d b ee n a r r es te d a nd Age ntR eh gs ai d tha t he co ul d no t ag r ee t o r el ea se Tr y d, a nd tha t th e bo nd dec i si o n was up to the j udg e. W y sing ert o l d Age ntRe hg th at he need e d to arrange the release of his brother m ore th anhe ne ede d t o b e r el ea se d hi m se l f

. The f o l l o wi ng e xc ha ng e the n o c c ur r e d: Rehg: W el l, te l l us wh at has been going o n. M aybe that’ s the be st w ay to sta rt
. Wy s i n g e r : Imean, do y o u th i n kIs h o u l d h a v e a l a wyer ? At thi s poi nt? Rehg: That is u p t o yo u. . . . Ir ead yo u yo ur r i ghts. I fyo u w ant a n att or ney, byal l m eans, ge t o ne. Ok? W ysi nger : Im ean, but can I cal l one now ? That’ s what I ’ m sa yi ng. R eh g: W h o yo u gon n a c all? W y sing er : I g o t a, um , I ha d a number i ns i de of th e va n, i ns i de the gr ee n va n ona she etofpape r . I had the att or ney’ s nam e. Gu m m er shei m er : W hat’ s hi s nam e? Do you know i t? W ysi nger : Ican’ t thi nk o fthe nam e. Ij ust had i t wrot e do wn. R eh g: Is h e loc al? W ysi nger : Yeah. H e’ s i n Bel l evi l l e. R e h g : Wh a t ’ s h i s n a me ? Imi g h tkn o w h i m.N o. 10

- 3894 11 Video at13 : 03; R. 28 7, Tr. at11 1. Thi s e xchange conti nued f or som e ti m e bef or e A gent Rehg ask ed , “Can we g o l o o ki n the v an ?” W y si ng er as se nt ed an d Age nt Rehg as ked, “I s there any dope orm oneyi n ther e?” Video at 13: 04; R

. 2 8 7, T r . a t1 1 2
. T ha tque s t i o n pr o mpt e d a den i al an d an ex pl an at i o n o f why W y sing er wa s in the E as t St . L ou is a r e a , na m ely , to ge t a law ye r for h is bro therand to r etr i eve a re ntalvan sei zed b y pol i ce s o th atthe v anc ou l d b e r etur ne d a nd s to p a cc um ul at i ng re n ta l ch ar ge s. A g en t R eh g d isp u te d th e t ru th of th is ex p lan at ion an d aft er a b rie f d ive rs ion , th e t op ic re turned t o W ysi nger ’ s r equest f oran a tto rney : Rehg: W e’ l l go o ut i n the van and ge t that num ber i fy o u want an at to r ne y . I fy o u do n’ t, we ca n g etthe th i ngg o i ngs o we k no w w he r e y o u a r e at
. I t’ s up to y o u. W y sing er : Ij us t do n’ t want to cr o ss no l i ne s, an d the n, y o u kno w w ha t I ’ m s ay i ng, r eg r et sh i t. I m ea n, Iwant to w or k with yo u. You kno w wh at I ’ m sa yi ng? G u mme r s h e i me r : Wh a ti s th e a t t o r n e y ’ s p h o n e n u mber ? Do y ou have any i dea? V id eo at13 :06 ; R

. 2 87, Tr . at 1 13 -14 . W ys in ge r ag ain st r ug g l ed to r emember th e number an d to des cribe the paper i n the van contai ni ng the num ber

. A gent Rehg the n ask ed W ysi ngeri fthe att or ney W ysi ngeri ntended to ca l l was hi s br o th er ’ s l awy er, a nd t o l d W y si ng er tha t he w as “not go i ng to be al l owed to have the sam e a tto rney ”12 N o. 10

- 3894

Ag e n tRe h g ’ s a dv i c e wa s i n c o r r e c t
. A l a wy e r ma y r e p re s en t 4 tw o clien ts ev en ift h o se c lients ha v e con fli cting intere sts s o l ong as both c l i en t s c ons en tt o the r epr es en t at i on and so l ong as the l awyer m ee t s the r equi re m en t s ofRul es 1. 7 a nd 1. 8 o f the Illinois R u les of Pro fessi on al C on d u ct. a s hi s b r o the r . Vi de o a t 1 3 : 0 6 ; R. 2 8 7, Tr

. a t 1 1 4

. A f ter 4 a b r i e f di s c us s i o n o f whe the r the a t t o r ne y ha d a l r e a dy be enr et aine d o r p aid, Age ntRe hga sk ed, “ Yo u wan t us to l oo k f ori t?” and W ysi ngers ai d, “Yeah, go ge t i t f or m e, M i ke. I ’ m going to cal l thi s att or ney, geth is a d vice. Iwas on m y way t o see hi m but Idi dn ’ t know how to geto verther e. ” Vi deo at13 : 07; R. 28 7, Tr. at11 5. Age nt s Re hga nd Gum m ersh ei m erl eft th e r o o m a nd ca m e ba ckwi tha pa perthe y r et r i ev ed fro m the v an . Age ntRe hga sk ed , “ D o yo u mi nd i fIc al l a nd ha nd the phone to yo u?” and W ysi ngerr epl i ed, “Y ea h. ” Vi deo at 1 3 : 1 2 ; R

. 2 8 7, Tr

. a t1 1 5
. Ag e n tR e h gth e n u s e d h i s o wn ce l l pho ne to ca l l th e l awy er . Ra th er th an han d the ph o ne o v e r, h e fi r s te ng a g e d the l a wy e r i n c o nv e r s ati on f o r a few mi nut es , g i vinghim “ ba ck g r o und” abo ut W ysi nger ’ s arrest, and dis cussi ng a coca i ne co nspir acy i nvol vi ng per sons i n Texas, Chica go and East S t. Louis. Age ntRe hgt o l d the a ttorn eytha t W y sing erwas the m ai n tar geto fthe i nvest i gat i on. Ev entual l y, he ha nd ed the phone to W ysi nger . A gents Rehg a nd Gum m er shei m erst aye d i n the ro om wh i l e W ysi ngerspok e t o the l aw yer, si tti ng no m or e than a few feetaway, abl e t o hea r e v e r y wo r d Wy s i ng e r s a i d. T he v i de o - a nd a ud i otapi ng co nti nued as W ysi ngerhad a v er y b ri efdi scuss i o n wi th th e l a wy e r . At o n e p o i n t, Wy s i n g e r wa s a p-N o. 10

- 3894 13 parentl y o n hol d w i th the l aw ye r and engag ed i n a b ri ef co nv er sa ti o n wi thAge ntRe hgabo utthe i r fi r stph one ca l l, whenW y sing ercal l ed Age ntRe hgt o di sc us s th e se i ze d m o ne y sh o r tl y b efo r e Chr i st m as whenAge ntRe hg w as on vacat i on. A fter com ple ti ng a ver y bri efco n ver sati on w i th the l aw yer, W ysi nger hand ed the ph on e b ack to A gent Rehg, wh o c onti nued ta l ki ng to the att or ney ab o utW y sing er ’ s po ss ibl e co o per at i o n. W hen A gent Rehg hu ng up the phone, h e tol d W ysi nger that he would at tem pt to ar ra nge forW ysi ngerto ge t ac ce ss t o pa r t of th e s ei ze d funds i n o r dert o pa y the att or ney i fW ysingerwas i nter est ed i n coo perat i ng. Bec au se the a tt o r ne y was not ab l e to meetwi ththe ag en ts unt i l F r i day( th e i nt er r o g at i o n t o o kpl ac e o n a M onday) , W ysi ngerwould have to drive backto East St . L ou is lat er th at w ee k. W ys in g e r w a s irr ita te d by th is turn o fev ents and com pla i ned that he di d not “ n eed th is he adache, ” that he had ten chi l dren and w as ti re d and und ers tress
. H e t ol d A gent Rehg, “Iam wore out. I ’ m t i r e d. T hi s i s s t r e s s ful

. T he e c o no my i s fuc k e d u p, y o u k no w wha tI ’ m sayi ng? W ha tc a n a b l a c kma n do no waday s? ” Vi deo a t 13 : 21 ; R

. 28 7, Tr

. a t 11 8. Age nt Re hgtol d W y sing ertha t m an y pe o pl e wer e st r ug g l i ng and had choi ces to m ake

. Ag e n t R e h g th e n d e c i d e d t o g i v e Wy s i n g e r “ s o me adv i ce , ” emphas i zingtha t he was no t as k i ngque st i o ns because W ysi ngerhad ask ed f oran a tto rney . V id eo at 13: 21- 13: 22; R. 28 7, Tr. at11 8. A ge nt Rehg tol d W ysi nger that i fhe w as ser i ous about coo perat i ng he shoul d not t a l kt o a n y o n e i n E a s tS t
. L o u i s e xc e p th i s l a wy e r . He14 N o. 10

- 3894

A f ew sh or t c l i ps wer e s hown t o the j ur y a gai n dur i ng the 5 gov ernm ent’ s cas e- in -ch ie f, i m m ediate ly afterthe full video was pl a ye d. speci fi cal l y warned W ysi nger, “ D on ’ t be ta l ki ng to anybo dy e l s e , a nyo fthe g uy s tha twe ’ r e t a l k i ngt o . ” Vi deo at1 3: 22 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 1 19

. At thi s r efer en ce t o pe r so ns w ho were al re ady co oper ati ng with th e pol i ce, W ysi nger aga i n s ho we d i r r i t a t i o n, a nd a l tho ugh the fi r s t par t o f his resp ons e w as u nin tell igible, the last p art w as clear: “fuck ar ound and hurt som ebo dy. ” Vi deo at13 : 22; R. 28 7, Tr. a t 119. A gent Rehg cl ear l y hea rd thi s a s a th re a t t o c o o p e r a t i n g w itn es se s a n d im m ed iat ely war ne d W y singer thathe woul d b e “l o ck ed up” i fthe agents he ar d abo uta ny s uchthr ea ts
. Af te r a sk i ng W y sing erabo uthi s pr i o r c r i m i na l r ec or d, Age ntRe hg ag ain w ar n ed h im th at if h e h ea rd “ a n y o th er bu llsh it g o i ng on outthe r e” the y woul d a r r es t W y sing era g ain. V i d e o a t 1 3 : 2 2

- 1 3 : 2 3 ; R

. 2 8 7, T r . a t 1 1 9
. A g e n t R e h g e mpha si ze d tha t things ar e no t al way s as the y a ppea r a nd th atthe r e wer e m an y w ays th e ag en ts o bt aine d the i nf or m atio n that l ed to W ysi nger ’ s a rr estthatday. They a g a in talked ab ou t a l aw yer W ysinger w ished to hire for his broth er, and W ysinger e x p ressed m ore con cern ove r hi s br othe r’ s a rr estbec ause Tryd h ad re centl y b een r el ea se d fr o m pr i so n a fte r s er ving a s i xt ee n- y ea r s en te n c e. H e ind i cate d that peo ple were ask i ng wh er e his bro therwas and that he wa s te llin g them thathe was “on vacat i on. ” Vi deo at13 : 23; R. 28 7, Tr. at12 0. The en tir e tape was sho w n to the j ury tw i ce, o nce 5 dur i ngthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ca se - i n- ch iefa nd o nc e dur i ngN o. 10

- 3894 15 del iber ati ons at the r equest of the j ury. The j ury al so re q u ested to hearthe tape o fthe i ni ti alcal l with A gen t Re hg regard ing the $54 ,0 0 0 seized from Tryd ’s va n i n De ce m be r 2 00 8. Dur i ngthe c as e- i n- ch i efa nd c l o s i n ga r g u me n t s , th e g o v e r n me ntr e p e a t e d l y e mphasi zed se ver alo fthe m or e inc rim inati ng st ate m ents W ysi ngerm ade duri ng the i nter ro gat i on. I n ad d iti on t o A gen t Re hg ’s tes tim ony and the vid eotap e of th e interro gat i on, the m ai n evi dence ag ain st W ysi ngerco nsi ste d o fthe t es ti m ony o fc o o per at i ngc o - co ns pi r at o r s who ha d s tr uckf av o r ab l e dea l s wi ththe g o ve rnm en t i n e xchange f orthei r testi m ony, and re cor ded cal l s with thos e co - conspi ra tor s. N o m on ey or drugs were ev er sei zed fro m W ysi nger a n d the pol i ce ne verco nnected an y of th e ph one s us ed i n t h e record ed call s to W ysinger. I nstea d, W ysi nger ’ s par ti ci pati on in those cal l s was es tabl i sh ed bythe t es ti m o ny o fc o o per at i ngc o - co nspi ra tor s a nd by A gent Re hg ’ s i de nt i f i cati on o f W ysi nger ’ s v oi ce. W ysinger m oved to sup p ress th e videot ap ed i nt err o g a t i o n b e f o r e t r i a l

. He c o n t e n d e d th a t h e wa s n o t p r o per ly app ri sed o fhi s M i r anda r i ght s , tha t the a g e nt s a ttem pted to dive rthi m fro m exer ci si ng hi s r i ghts, th athe di d no t wai ve tho se r ights, a nd tha t que st i o ni ng im p rop erly con tinu ed after he rep eated ly asked for a law yer. T he district cou rt rej ecte d allof W ysinger’s argu m en ts . Th e c ou rtfirst fou n d t h a t A ge n t R eh g c lea rly re ad W ysi ngerhi s M i r anda r i g ht s atthe s ta rt of th e i nt e r v i e w. Th e c o ur t he l d tha t W y s i ng e r wa i v e d t hose ri ghts i m pli ci tl y when he i nd i cate d that he und er sto od hi s r i ghts and then off er ed an uncoer ced st ate m ent.16 N o. 10

- 3894 Fi nal l y, the cour t co nc lu d ed thatea ch m enti on o fan at to r ne y b y W y sing erf ai l ed to meetthe s ta ndard for a cl earand unam bi guous i nvocat ion o fthe ri ght t o an at to r n e y . As we n o t e d ab o v e , th e j u r y v i e we d t he enti re i n ter ro gat i on t w i ce b ef or e co nvi cti ng W ysi nger on bo th co unts char ged in the ind i ctm ent. W ysi nger appeal s.

II. On appeal, W ysi nger aga i n chal l enges the adm i ssi on ofthe vi deotaped i nter ro gat i on. H e fi rs t co ntends that th e co ur t er r ed i n a dm i tt i ngthe v i d eo be ca us e he c l e a r l y a nd u na mbi g uo us l y i nv o k e d h i s r i g htt o c ounsel m ul t i p l e t i me s . He n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e s t a t e me nt s he m ad e to A gen t Re hg and Offi cer G um m ersh eim er w ere o bt aine d a s th e r esult ofi na dequa te a nd mi sl ea di ng M i r anda w arn in g s . Fi na ll y, he cont en d s tha t the cou rt sh o ul d not h av e admi tt ed th e po r ti o ns o fthe v i deo c o ntaining h is priv ile ged com m un ications w ith his law yer. I n consi deri ng a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o n a m oti on to supp re ss, we re vi ew fi nd i ngs o ff act f orcl earer ro r a n d qu e s t i o n s o fl a w d en ovo . U n i ted S ta tes v. P eters , 43 5 F .3d 74 6, 75 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ).

A. W e begin w ith W ysinger’s claim th at th e d istr ic t c ou rt er r ed i n r efus i ngt o s up p ress th e vi deo o n the g r o und th a t th e a g e n t s c o n t i n u e d t o i n t e r r o g a t e h i m a f te r he cl ear l y invoke d his r i ght t o counselm u ltip l e t i m es.N o. 10

- 3894 17 The r e ar e no r ea l di spu tes regardi ngthe f ac ts
. The par ti es do no t di sa g r ee i n a ny mate r i alway abo ut the words tha t W ysing erspok e when he re f er enced hi s r i ght t o an at torney. I nstea d , theyta ke i ssue w i th the l ega l eff ect oftho se w or ds, and that i s a que st i on of law

. P eters , 43 5 F

. 3d at 750. I n M i r anda , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that, wh en an i nd i vi du ali n custo dy “st ate s that he w ants an at torney, the inter ro gat ion m ust ce ase unti l an a tto rneyi s pre sent. ” M i r anda v. Ar izona , 3 84 U. S

. 436, 474 ( 19 66 )

. The S up r e me Co ur tl a t e r c l a r i fi e d: [ W ] hen an a ccused has i nvoke d his r i ght t o have c ou n se l p re se n t d u rin g c u st od ial in te rro ga ti on , a val i d w ai vero fthatr i ght c annot be establ i shed by s ho wi ngo nl y tha th e r e s po nd e d t o fur the r p ol i ce- in i ti ate d custodi ali nter ro gat i on e ven i fhe ha s been advi sed o fhi s r i ghts. W e furtherhol d that a n accused,

. . . havi ng e x p re sse d his desi re to dealwith the pol i ce o nl y thro ugh co u nsel, i s no t s ubj ect to fur the r i nt e r r o g a t i o n b y the a utho r i t i e s u nt i l c o unsel has be en m ade ava i l abl e t o hi m , u n les s the acc used hi mse l fi ni t i a t e s fur the r c o mm un i c a t i o n, e xc ha ng e s, orco nver sat i ons w i th the pol i ce. Edwards v. Ar izona , 4 51 U. S

. 4 77, 4 84

- 85 ( 19 81 )

. The g o ve r nm en t do es no t di spu te tha t W y sing erwas i n c us to dy, the fi rs t part o fthe M i r anda an aly sis . Th e ru le e x p re ss ed in M i r anda a nd Edwards n ex t re q u ire s c ou rt s t o e n ga ge in two di st i nc t i nqui r i es . F i r st, c o ur ts mustde te r m i ne w h et her the s uspect a ctual l y invoke d his o r her ri ght t o coun se l. “Se cond, i fthe accused i nvoke d his r i ght t o18 N o. 10

- 3894 counsel, co urts m ay adm i t hi s r espon se s to furtherquesti oni ng onl y o n fi nd i ng tha t he ( a) i ni ti ate d fur therdi sc u ss ion s w ith t h e p olic e, an d (b) k n ow in gly an d int elligentl y wai ved the ri ght he had in voked. ” Sm i t h v

. Il l i nois , 4 69 U

. S. 91 , 95 ( 1984 ) ( ci ti ng Edwards , 45 1 U.S

. at 485, 486, n. 9). The questi on her e is w hetherand w hen W ysi nger “ac tu all y i nv oked ” his ri gh t to cou ns el. “To av oid d if

fi cu lti es of proof and to provi d e g uid an ce to officers c on d u c tin g in te rro ga tio n s, th is is a n ob j ec tiv e in q u iry .” D a vis v . U nited Sta tes , 51 2 U.S

. 45 2, 4 58 -59 ( 1994 )

. I n or der for th e prot ection s of M i r anda a nd Edwards t o a ppl y, the suspect m ust, ata m i ni m um , m ake a “s tatem ent that can reason ably be con stru ed to be an ex p re s s ion of a desi r e f o r the a s s i s t a nc e o f a n a t t o r ne y i n de a l i ng with custo dial i nter ro gat i on by the pol i ce. ” M cNei l v. Wis consin , 50 1 U .S

. 17 1, 17 8 (1 99 1). Seeals o D avis , 51 2 U.S

. at45 9 ( sa m e)

. I f a su spe ct m ak es an equi vo ca l o r am biguo us re fer en c e t o a l a w y er , a refe re n c e t h at a re as on ab le offi cerwould in te rpre t a s a st ate m ent that the suspect m ight be invoking the r i ght t o cou n se l, ther e i s no r eq u ire m en t t h at qu es tio n in g e n d

. D avis , 5 1 2 U. S

. a t4 5 9. Ind et er m in in g w h et h er a su sp ec t c lea rly inv ok ed h is or h er righ t t o c ou n se l, w e c on sid er th e c irc u m st an c es in whi c h the s tat e men twa s ma de a s we l l a s the wo r ds em p loy ed

. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S h ab az , 5 79 F. 3d 815, 81 9 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 9), cert. denied , 130 S. C t. 33 84 (20 10 ). Se ealso Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ha mpt on , 675 F. 3d 720, 72 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( o bj ec ti ve i nqui r y i nt o whethe r s us pec t i nv o k ed r i g ht to c o uns eli nc l ude s r ev i ew o fno t o nl y the wo r ds th eN o. 10

- 3894 19

s us pe c t us e d b ut a l s o the c i r c ums t a nc e s i n w hi ch th e statem en t w as m ad e). [T ]h e s u sp ec t m u st u n am b igu ou sly req u es t c ou n se l. A s we have obs er ved, a sta tem ent either i s s uch an as se rt ion of th e rig h t t o c ou n se l or i t i s n o t
. . . . A lth ough a suspectneed notspeakwith the di scr i m i natio n of an O x for d d on . . . h e m u st art icu lat e h is d es ire to h av e c ou n se l p r e s e n t s u fficie n tly cle ar ly th at a re aso nabl e pol i ce o ffi ceri n the ci rcum sta nces w oul d und er sta nd the sta tem ent t o be a r equest f or ana tt o r ne y . I fthe s ta te m en t f ai l s to meetthe re q u isit e le ve l of cla rit y, E dw a rds do es no t r equir e that the o ffi cer s s top quest i oni ng the suspect
. D avis , 5 12 U. S

. a t 45 9 ( i nt erna l quotatio n mar k s an d citations om itted ). I n Sm it h , the suspect was to l d he had the r i ght t o co ns u l twi th a l a wy e r a n d t o h a v e a l a wy e r p r e s e nt w h en be in g q u es tio n ed . W h en t h e o ffice r im m ed iat ely f ol l owed thi s par t o fthe M i r anda wa r ning b y a s k i ng, “ Do y o u un der st an d tha t? ” th e su spe ctrepl i ed, “ Uh, y ea h. I ’ d l i k e to do tha t.” 469 U. S

. a t 93

. Al th o ug h the suspect then wavere d reg ar ding hi s desi re to have a l a w ye r aft er th e o ffice r c om p let ed th e fu ll M i r anda w ar ni ng, the Suprem e Cour t h eld thatthe l ate r equi voca ti o n c o ul d no t r en dera m bi g uo us the e ar l i erc lear a nd u n eq u ivo c al in vo c a t i o n of th e rig h t t o c ou n se l. Sm it h , 46 9 U. S

. a t 95

- 98
. S i m i l ar l y, i n Edwards , th e s t a t e s u p r e me co ur t det er m i ne d tha t th e defen dan t’ s st atem en t, “ Iwant an a ttorne y b ef or e m aki ng a deal, ” was suffi ci entl y c l ear w i thi n the conte xt o fthe i nt er ro gat i on t o const i tute a20 N o. 10

- 3894

re q u es t fo r c ou n se l. Edwards , 4 51 U. S

. a t 48 0 n. 6. On th e o the r ha nd , the s t a t e men t, “ M a yb e I s ho ul d t a l k t o a l aw yer, ” i s no t a cl earr equest f orco uns el. D avis , 512 U

. S. at 46 2. Se eal s o S hab az , 57 9 F

. 3d at 81 8- 19 ( the quest i on “[A ]m I going to be able to get an attorn ey?” pos ed before M i r anda warni ngs i s not a cl earr equest to consul t with c ou n se l p re se n tly ); U ni t ed S ta tes v. Lee, 41 3 F

. 3d 622, 62 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “Can Ihave a l aw yer ?” i s an unequivo cal requ est for an attorn ey, requ iring that police offi cers h alt t h e i n te rro ga tio n ; “I th in k I sh ou ld ca ll m y la w ye r,” “Can Ita l k t o a la w yer ?” a nd “Ihave to ge t m e a go od law y er, m an . C an I m ak e a p h on e c all? ” a re als o a ll u n eq u ivo c al in vo c at ion s o f t h e r igh t t o c ou n se l); U nited Sta tes v. Lo rd, 29 F. 3d 1216 , 12 21 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( the questi on, “Ic an ’t aff or d a l aw yerbut i s there any w ay Ican get one? ” lacked th e clear i m p li cation of a prese nt desi re to c on sul t with counseland thus was not an un eq uivoc al r eq ue st for cou ns el)

. W y sing erc o nt en ds that he fi r sti nv o k ed hi s r i g ht to counseli n the openi ng m om ents ofthe i nter ro gation, w he n h e asked “D o Ineed a l a w y er before w e start tal ki ng?” Video at12 : 54; R. 28 7, Tr. at10 4. W ysi nger ar gues that thi s quest i on in d icated an i ntenti on t o have a la w ye r p re se n t a t t h at m om en t, befo re the i nter ro gati on be gan. In c on text, W ysi ngeras ked thi s quest i on bef or e r ecei vi ng a M i r anda warni ng. A gent Rehg r esponded , “W el l, we’r e g oi ng to ta l k about that. ” He then gave a M i r anda war ni ngtha t w e wi l l di sc us s be l o w and en gaged W ysinger in a con versat ion t h a t m eets th e d ef-N o. 10

- 3894 21

The M i ra nda safegu ard s ap p ly n ot o nly to ex p ress qu es- 6 tio ning bu t t o “any w ords or ac ti ons on the part ofthe polic e ( othe r than thos e nor m al l y a t t en dantt o a rr es tan d cu s t ody) thatthe polic e s hould know are reas onab ly l ikel y to eli ci t an incr im in a ting res pon se from the s uspect. ” R hodeIsl and v. In n is , 44 6 U .S. 2 9 1 , 30 0 -0 1 (19 8 0 ). in itio n of in te rro ga tio n . In th is c on te x t, a re as on ab le 6 officer m ight not un d erstan d W ysinger’s initi a l referen ce to an attorn ey as an un e qu ivocal requ est for a l awy er . Tr ue , W y sing er ’ s que st i o n ment i o ne d the p re se n t m om en t, i.e. , “ bef o r e we s ta r t ta l k i ng . ” But asking “D o I ne ed a law yer?” i s a su bsta nt ively d iff er ent quest i on than “Can Ihave a l aw yer ?” See Lee, 413 F. 3d at 626 ( “Can Ihave a l aw yer ? ” is an unequivo cal re quest f oran a tto rney )

. The fi rs t questi on i nd i cate s that the a ske r i s co ntem p lat ing whether he i s i n need of the s er vi ces ofa l aw yer ; t h e se c ond questi on i s a di re ct re q u es t fo r a la w ye r. See a ls o M ue l l e rv. Ange l one, 18 1 F

. 3d 55 7, 5 73

- 74 ( 4th C ir. 1 99 9) ( que st i o n “ Do y o u thi nk Ine ed ana tt o r ne y he r e? ” po se d t o po li ce off i ce r dur i ng in te rro ga tio n w as an a m bi guous “querywh ether h is in te rro ga to r th ou gh t th at c ou n se l m igh t b e h e l p fu l” an d n ot “a c lea r as se rt ion of his rig h t t o c ou n se l”); D i az v. Se nkows ki, 7 6 F

. 3 d 6 1, 63 (2 d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu e s t i o n “ Do you thi nk Ineed a l aw yer ?” no t a cl eari nvocat i on o f t h e r igh t t o c ou n se l); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O gb ue hi, 1 8 F

. 3 d 8 07, 813 ( 9th Ci r. 19 94) ( a s uspect a ski n g i fhe “ shoul d see a law yer” ha s n o t clearly invoked his ri gh t to cou ns el) ; U nite d State s v. M arch , 99 9 F

. 2d 456, 46 0 ( 10th Cir

. 19 93) (defen d an t’s qu estion “D o you th ink Ine e d a n att or-22 N o. 10

- 3894 ney?” did notco nsti tute an unequiv oca l r equest f oran att or ney)

. W ysi nger ’ s i ni ti alquesti on thus w as n ot an unequivo calr equest f ora l aw yerand A gent Rehg was n o tr e q u i r e d t o c e a s e th e i n t e r r o g a t i o n a tth a tp o i n t
. As w e have done bef or e, tho ugh, we encour age l aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s t o heed the Suprem e Cour t’ s s u ggesti on i n D avis that“when a suspect m ake s a n a m b i guous or equi voca l st ate m ent i t wil l o ften b e go od pol i ce pr acti ce f orthe i nter vi ew in g offi cer s t o cl ar i fy whether ornot he actual l y wants an att or ney. ” Lee, 413 F. 3d at 626- 27 ( quoti ng D avis , 51 2 U.S

. at46 1)

. That cl arifi cati on ca n ai d b oth the pol i ce offi cer s and the re vi ew i ng co u rt s. Lee, 413 F.3d at62 6-2 7. But see B erghu i s v. Thom pki ns , 13 0 S

. Ct

. 2 2 5 0 , 2 2 5 9

- 6 0 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ( i fa s u s p e c tma k e s a n a mb i g uous o r equi voca l st ate m ent c oncer nin g c ounsel, pol i ce ar e no t r equi re d t o en d the i nter ro gat i on o r ask q u esti ons cl ar i fyi ng wh etherthe accused wishe s t o invoke h is orher M i r anda ri gh ts). That fi rs t, am bi guous questi on byW ysi ngercam e a t ti m e ind ex 12 : 54 i n the vid eo. W ysi nger ’ s next re f er ence to a law ye r oc c u rre d attim e in d ex 13 :03 , a f t e r ap p ro x im ate l y ni ne m i nutes o fi nter ro gat i on. A t that poi nt, Age ntRe hgo pen ed h is n o te bo o k, pul l ed o uthi s pen, an d as ke d W ys in ge r to “t ell u s w h at h as be en goin g on .” W ys in ge r th en m ad e h i s se c on d refe re n c e t o c ou n se l, saying, “Im ean , do yo u t h in k Ishou ld h ave a law yer? At thi s po i nt ?” Vi deo a t 13 : 03 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 11 1. Age nt Rehg r e s po nd e d tha ti twa s u p t o h i m, tha ti fh e wa nted ana tt o r ne y, he s ho ul d g eto ne . W ysing er ’ s se co nd que st i o n was v i r tu al l y i den tic alt o hi s i ni ti al, a m bi g uous inquir y. I n and ofi tse l f, i t doe s no t con sti tute anN o. 10

- 3894 23 unequivo calr equest f or co unsel

. A s i s a pp ar ent fro m A ge n t Rehg’s r esponse , he he ar d W ysi nger ’ s quest i on as j us t th at, a que st i o n s ee k i ngthe a g en t’ s o pi ni o n. ButW y sing er ’ s ve r y n ex t se nt en ce c l ar i fi ed th e r e qu e s ta nd r e mov e d a l l do ub ta s t o h i s me a ning . Af ter A ge nt Re hg t o l d hi m, “ I f y o u wa nt a n a t t o r ne y, by al l m e a n s , g e to n e , ” Wy s i n g e r r e s p o n d e d , “ Ime a n, b ut can Ical l o ne now? Th at ’s what I ’ m sa yi ng. ” Vi deo at 13:03; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 11 1. Tha t r es po ns e to Age ntRe hg ’s sta tem ent, i n co n text, was an unequiv oca l r equest f or cou ns el that n o r e ason able officer could i nt erp ret othe rw ise . Th e g ov er n m en t a ss er ts th at th is q u es tio n co u ld h av e b ee n as ke d to d et er m in e w h et h er W ys in ge r w ou ld st i l l b e el i g ibl e f o r co o per at i o n i fhe c al l ed ana tt o r ne y . But th at is a strained and un na tu ral read ing of W y s in ger’s questi on. A gent Rehg had j ust fl i p p ed o pen his not ebo ok and aske d dir ectl y ( f orthe fi rs t t i m e) f orW ysi ngerto tel l the offi cer s “ w hat has bee n g oi ng o n. ” W ysi nger ask ed i fth e ag en t thought he shoul d have a l aw yerat th atpo i nt, a nd whe n the a g en t to l d him i t was up to hi m , he a ske d to “cal l o ne now .” In c on text, the gov er nm ent’ s s ugges ted m eani ng m ake s no se nse. The in ter ro gat i on s houl d have i m m edi ate l y c eas ed at that poi nt. I nstea d, A gent Rehg co nti nued to m ake st ate
m en ts an d as k q u es tio n s t h at a re as on ab le offic er w ou ld know we r e l i k e l y t o e l i c i ti nc r i mi na t i ngr e s po ns e s . F or exam ple , withi n sec onds, A gent Rehg as ked i fther e was “a ny do pe o r mone y ” i n W y sing er ’ s va n. An d i n the ensui ng m i nute s, A gent Rehg chal l enged the tr uth of W ysi n ge r’s expl anati on f orwh y he w as i n the East24 N o. 10

- 3894

A lthoug h th e agents l ateral lowed W ysi nger to cal l an 7 a t t o r n e y , a n i s o l a t e d c o n s u l t a t i o n wi th a n a t t o r n e y wh o i s no t phy si cal ly pres ent is in adequ ate und er Edw ar ds an d its p ro g en y to p ro te ct a su sp ec t’s ri g h ts. SeeM i nni ck v. M i ss i ss ippi, 4 9 8 U .S. 1 4 6 , 15 4 (19 9 0 ). St

. Loui s a re a, r em i nd ed W ysi ngerthatthe pol i ce had interce pte d pho ne s ca l l s, a nd t o l d W y sing ertha t he w as f am i l i arwith otherper sons i n W ysi nger ’ s ci rcl e. The c o u r ts h o u l d h a v e e x c l u d e d e v e r y th i n go n t he vi deo fro m the i nvoc at ion o fthe ri ght t o counselat ti m e ind ex 13 : 03 thro ugh the end o f the i nter ro gat i on at 13: 26 on the gr ounds that the ad d itio nal twentythr e e mi nu t e s o fi nt e r r o g a t i o n v i o l a t e d M i r anda a nd i ts prog eny. 7

B. Ou r c o nc l us i o n tha tthe c ou r ts ho ul d h a v e s up pre s s e d a nyi nt e r r o g a t i o n tha to c c ur r e d a ft e r Wys i nger i nvoke d hi s ri ght to counsel at ti m e i nd ex 13: 03 d oe s not add re ss the fi rs t ni ne m i nutes o fthe vid eo, wh i ch W ysi ngeral so soughtto excl ud e. W e there f or e m ust con side r W ysinger’s alterna t e a rgum en t tha t the entire vi deo s houl d have be en suppress ed beca use hi s s tat em en ts wer e o bt aine d a s th e r es ul t o fa n i na dequa te a nd m i sl eadi ng M i r anda warni ng. In parti cul ar, W ysi nger com pla i ns that th e M i r anda warni ng m i sl ed hi m i nto bel i evi ng tha t hi s r i ght t o counselappli ed onl y t o “questi oni ng” a nd thatA gent Rehg the n enga ged i n a c ou rs e o fc o nduc t des i g ne d t o di vert W y sing era way fr o m i n-N o. 10

- 3894 25 vok i ng hi s r i ghts by i m ply in g th at questi oni ng had not y et be g un. W e wi l l fi r st addr es s th e ade qua cy o f the M i r anda w ar n in g A ge n t R eh g d eliv er ed , an d w e w ill then turn to w hether W ysi nger w as m i sl ed an d d iver ted by the warni ng and the age nts’ co urse o fco nd uct.

1. T h e gov er n m en t con te n d s th at W ys in ge r w aiv e d h is chal l enge to the a dequ acy ofthe M i r a nda w ar ni ng by n ot p re se rv in g t h e is su e b elo w . B u t W ys in ge r d id in f act ra i se thi s a rgum en t i n hi s pre tr i alm oti on t o su p p r es s in th e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d th e c ou rtad d re ss ed it o n the mer i ts
. R. 1 01 ( M o ti o n t o S uppr es s Video a nd Taped S tat em ents)

. I n that m oti on, he c om pla i ned that, a ft e r h e r e qu e s t e d a l a wy e r, the DEA a g e nt s “ pr o c e e d[ e d] to d irect the con versat ion aw ay fr o m the d efend an t’s r eque stf o r a l awy er ” an d c o nt inu ed th e i nt er r o g at i o n. H e a l so ass er ted thathe “ w as not prop erl y a dvis ed of his rights to consul t a l aw yerand to have a l aw yer prese nt [ w i th] hi m duri ng the i nter ro gat i on. ” W ysi nger ra i sed the i ss u e a seco nd ti m e in hi s pos t- tr i alm oti on f orj ud gm ent o facqui tta l, wh er e he ass er ted that Ag e ntR e hgr e pe a t e dl y a t t e mpt e d t o mi s di r e c th i m r egar ding hi s M i r anda r ights

. R. 18 2 ( M em or andu m o f Law i n Support ofM oti on f orJ u dgm ent o fA cquit tal N otwithstandi ng the J ury’ s Ver dicto r i n the A l ter nati ve f ora N ew Tri al )

. Because the di str i ct c ourtwas al er ted to the i ssue and had an opportuni ty to ru le o n the m er i ts, th e c laim is th er efo r e a d eq u at ely p re se rv ed

. U nited St at e s v. Van Eyl , 468 F.3d 428 ( 7th Cir. 2006).26 N o. 10

- 3894

Thi s t ra nsc ri pt i on i s bas ed o n s eve ra l c ar eful r evi ews ofthe 8 tape, as w el l as the court r eporter ’ s re n diti on of the tape as i twa s p lay ed d ur i ng the t ri al

. I n thi s par tofthe t ape , Agen t R eh g spo k e so softly th at it is d i fficult to h ear w ha t he is s ayi ng. The c our tr epo rt er, for e xa m pl e, o m i t t ed fro m the offi c i a l t r a ns c r i ptthe wor ds , “y ou mus tun de r s t a nd y ou h a ve a ri ght to rem ain s il ent. ” As tr ansc ribed i n cou rt, the re ar e thus si gn i fi c a nto m i s s i on s i n the wa r ni ng . Be c a us e we h a ve the benef itofthe tape i ts el f, and b ecaus e the dis tr ic t c ourt based it s ruli ng on the t ape it se lf, w e will rel y on th e t ape. In a ll relev an t resp ects, ou r tran scrip tion is c o n sistent w ith the d istrict cou rt’ s find ing s of f act. W e b e g i n wi th the wo r ds o fthe M ir anda war ni ng, a nd the c onte xt i n w hi ch thos e words were del i ver ed. A l m ost a s s o o n a s th e a g e nt s e n t e r e d th e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m, W y sing era sk ed whethe r he ne ede d a l awy er . A g en t Re hg si de-s teppe d t h e qu est i on a nd then tol d W ysi ngerthat h e w as u n d er arr es t. T h e ag en t t h en d eliv er ed th e fo ll ow in g warni ng to W ysi nger, wh i ch he a pp ear ed to be r eadi ng fro m a car d he extr acte d fr om hi s wal l et: Bef o r e we a ska ny que sti ons , y o u mustunde r st an d you have a r i ght t o re m ai n silen t. A nythi ng y ou sa y ca n b e us ed ag ains t y o u i n c o ur t. Yo u have a r i g ht to tal k to a l aw yer f or advi ce bef or e w e ask an y qu esti o ns o r ha ve o ne

— ha ve a n a tt o r ne y wi thy o u during questi oni ng. I fyo u can’ t a ff or d a l aw yer, o ne wil l be appoint ed f oryo u bef or e w e ask any questi ons. Do y ou unde r st an d

— Vi deo a t 12 : 55 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 10 5. At that p oin t, Age nt 8 Re hg, who ha d b ee n s cr at ch i ngh i s ne ckwhi l e r ea di ngN o. 10

- 3894 27 the warni ng, sl apped the table l oudly, causing W ysi nger t o mo v e b a c kqu i c k l y fr o m the ta b l e a n d e x c l a i m, “Dam n!” A fter ex p l ai ni ng tha t he w as ki l l i ng an i nsect, A gent Rehg pi cked up the car d aga i n and ask ed W ysi nger ifhe ha d everbee n ar re ste d. W ysi ngerr epl i ed, “Pet ty sh i t. ” Age nt Re hg th en as k ed hi m , “Yo u unde r st an d y o ur r i g ht s, tho ug h? ” a nd W y sing err epl i ed, “ Ye ah

. ” Age nt Rehg the n ask ed W ysi ngeri fhe ha d a hi gh sc hoolo r col l ege education , a nd W ysi ngersho ok hi s hea d negat i v e l y a nd s a i d, “N on e o ftha t
. ” Ag e ntR e hgr e pe a t e d,

“ Bu ty o u un de r s t a nd , r i g ht ? ” a nd Wys i ng e r a g a i n s a i d, “Yeah. ” Vi deo at12 : 55; R. 28 7, Tr. at10 5. I n M i r anda , th e Su p r e m e C ou rtse t fo rt h th e b as ic wa r ning s r e qu i r e d t o p r e s er ve a s us pe c t ’ s F i fth Am e nd

m ent r i ghts: A t the o utset, i fa pe rs on in c ustody i s t o be s ubj ec te d to int er ro ga tio n, h e m u st first be info rm ed in cl earand unequivo calte rm s that he has th e rig ht to re m ai n si l ent.
. . . The warni ng o fthe ri gh t to re m ai n si l en t m ust be acc om panie d by the expl anati on that a ny th i ng sa i d can and w i l l be used aga i nst the ind i vi du ali n cour t.
. . . [ A ] n i n d ivid u al hel d fo r i nter ro gat i on m ust be cl ear l y info rm ed thathe ha s th e r i g htt o c o nsul t wi tha l awy era nd t o ha ve the l aw yerwith hi m duri ng i nter ro gat i on[

. ]

. . . In or der ful l y t o a ppr i se a pe r so n i nt er r o gat ed o fthe e xt en t of his rights u nd er this system then , i t is ne cess ary to w ar n h im n o t o n ly th at h e h as th e rig h t t o c on su lt w i th an att or ney, but al so that if h e is ind i gent a l a wy e r w i l l b e a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n th i m.28 N o. 10

- 3894 M i r anda , 38 4 U.S

. at46 7-73 . Th e Cour t a l so provi ded a hand y sum m ar y of the now - f am i l i ar w ar ni ngs, as w ell as the c onse quences o ff ai l i ng to del i verthe w ar ni ngs: T o s u m m ar ize , w e h old th at w h en an ind ivid u al is tak en i nto custo d y oro ther w i se depri ved ofhi s fre edo m b y the a utho r iti es i n a ny s i g ni fi ca ntway a nd i s subj ecte d t o questi oni ng, . . . [ h]e m ust be w ar ned pri orto any questi oni ng tha t he h as the r i ght t o re m ai n s i l e nt, tha ta ny thingh e s a y s c a n b e u s ed agains t hi m i n a c o ur t o fl aw, tha t he ha s th e r i g ht t o the p r e s e nc e o fa n a t t o r ne y, a nd tha ti fh e c annot af f o r d an at to rn ey on e w ill be a p p oin te d for h im p rior to an y qu estioning if he so d esire s . Op p ortuni ty to exer ci se these r i ghts m us t be aff or ded to hi m thr ou gh ou t th e in te rr oga ti on. A ftersuch w ar ni ngs have been g i ven, and such o pp or tuni ty afforded hi m , the i ndi vi dualmay k no wi ng l y a nd i ntel l i gentl y w ai ve these ri ghts and a gr ee to an sw er q u es tio n s o r m ak e a st at em en t. B u t u n les s a n d u n til su chwar ni ng s an d wai ve r a r e demons tr at ed bythe p ro se c u tio n attr i a l , no ev id en c e o b ta in ed as a re su lt o fi n t e r r o g a t i o n c a n b e u s e d a g a i n s th i m. M i r anda , 38 4 U.S

. at47 8- 79. Age ntRe hgv ee r ed sl i g htl y fr o m the s ta nda r d war ni ng l anguage i n a fe w respect s. A pote nti al l y s er i ous m i sst ate
m ent o fthe M i r anda war ningo cc ur r ed when Age ntRe hg tol d W ysi ngerthat h e had the “r i ght t o tal k t o a l aw yer f oradvi ce b ef or e we askany questi ons orhave one

— have an at torney with yo u du ri ng quest i oni n g.” T ak en liter ally , A ge n t R e h g t old W ys in ge r th at h e c ou ld tal k t o an at torney b ef or e quest i oni ng orduri ng ques-N o. 10

- 3894 29 ti oni ng. I n f act, W ysi n ge r h ad a ri ght t o consul t a n att or ney b oth bef or e a nd du r i ngque s t i o ning . P e rha ps be ca us e th eyadvi se s us pec ts o fthe i r r i g ht s so o fte n, o ffi ce r s so m et i m es b ec o m e l ax wi ththe w ord in go fthe w arn ing an d risk a m isstatem en t of th e law

. A gen t Re hg ’s wa l l etcar d i s n o tp a r to fth e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l a n d s o we do n ot kn ow i fthe c ar d i s i nc o r r ec t o r i fAge ntRe hg sim p ly m iss p ok e w h en h e c h an ge d th e “ an d ” t o a n “o r.” The di st r i ctc o urt , w hi chc o ns i der ed th e sa m e vi deo a nd tr an sc r i pt th atwe ar e an al y zing, also found th atAge nt Rehg to l d W ysingerthat“he had a r i ght t o tal k t o a l aye r [ si c] f orad vice bef or e quest i oni ng orto have an att or ney pr ese nt duri ng quest i oni n g[.]” R. 15 1, at10 ( emphas i s adde d)

. The co ur t f o und tha t th i s war ni ng w as ad eq ua te un d er M i r anda

. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s fi nd i ngs o ff act f or clear er r o r, b utthe r e i s no di spu te he r e r eg ar di ngthe actual w or ds that A gent Rehg spoke w hen he read W ys i n g e r h is rig h ts
. See P eters , 4 35 F

. 3d at7 50

- 51

. The l ega l eff ect oftho se w or ds, tho ugh, i s a q u est i on o fl aw th a twe r e v i e w d en o vo , a n d it i s the l ega l suffi ci ency of th e w ar n in g t h at is at iss u e h er e. P eters , 43 5 F

. 3d at 751. The Sup re m e Cour t has r epeate dlydecl i ned to dict ate the parti cul ar w or ds i n w hi ch the M i r anda i nfo rm ati on m u st be co n ve ye d

. SeeFlor ida v. P ow el l , 13 0 S. Ct. 1195 , 12 04 ( 2010 ) ( noti ng tha t, al though the f our w ar ni ngs M i r anda r equi r es a r e i nv ar i ab l e, the Co ur t ha s never di ct at ed th e wor ds i n whi chthe es se nt i ali nf o r m at i o n mustb e co nve ye d ); D uc kwor t h v

. Eagan , 4 9 2 U

. S

. 1 9 5 , 2 0 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( c o mm enti ng tha t the Courthas neverr equi re d that M i r anda w ar ni ngs b e g i ven i n the exact f or m desc ribed i n that d ec isio n ); C alifo rn ia v. Prysock, 45 3 U.S

. 35 5, 35 9- 60 ( 1981 )30 N o. 10

- 3894

The re w as no di s put e i n P o w ell regarding w hether the offic er 9 adequ atel y co n v ey ed the other M i ra nda w arn ing s. T he on ly i s s ue was w he the r the warn i ng was s uffi c i en tt o c onve y the ri ghtt o the p re s en c e ofcouns el b efor e and dur i ng i nt er ro gat i on. (re m ar ki ng tha t M i r anda i t s e l f i n d i c a t e d th a t no talism an i c i ncantati on was r equi re d to sat i sfy i ts str i cture s)

. H owever, the w or ds the offi cerem plo ys m ust re aso nabl y c onveyto a suspect hi s r i ghts as r equi re d by M i r anda

. P ow el l , 1 3 0 S

. C t
. a t1 2 0 4

- 0 5 ( th e r e l e v a nt i nquir y i s w hetherthe w ar ni ngs r eas onabl y c onvey ed to a s uspect hi s r i ghts as re quir ed by M i r anda ; the wo r d s u s e d mu s tb e s u ffi c i e n t l y c o mp r e h e n s i v e a n d c o mp re h en sib le w h en giv en a c om m on se n se rea d in g); D uc kw orth , 49 2 U.S

. at20 2 ( a full y e ff ecti ve equ iva len t o f th e war ni ngs li st ed i n M i r anda is su fficie n t); P rys ock, 45 3 U.S

. at35 9- 60 ( the M i r anda warni ngs o r their eq uivalen t w il l su ffice). The w or ding of A gent Rehg’ s warni ng m ay have been i nadequ at e by thi s s tandard. The ag ent’ s di ver gence f ro m the f am i l i ar scr i pt w oul d put a suspect to a fa lse choi ce b etween tal ki ng to a l aw yerb efo re questi oni ng o r ha v i ng a l a wy e r pr e s e nt du r i ng qu e s t i o ning, wh en M i r anda cl ear l y r equi re s that a suspectbe advi sed that he has th e r i g htt o a n a tt o r ne y b o thb efo r e an d dur i ng que st i o ni ng . I n P ow el l , the offi c er del i ver i ng the M i r anda w ar ni ng to l d the s uspect that he had “the r i gh t to t al k t o a l awy erb efo r e an sw eri nga ny o fo urque st i o ns , ” an d th a t h e h a d “ th e r i g h t t o u s e a n y o f th e s e r i g ht s ata ny ti m e y ou want du ri ng thi s inter vi ew . ” 13 0 S

. Ct. at12 00. 9 The Court f ound the warni ng suffi ci ent:N o. 10

- 3894 31 T h e firs t s ta te m en t c om m u n ica te d th at P ow ell c ou ld con su lt w ith a l aw yer b efore answ ering an y pa rti cul arque st i o n, a nd the s ec o nd s ta te m en t co nfi r m ed th athe c o ul d e xe r ci se tha t ri g htwhi l e th e i nt er r o g at i o n was unde r way . I n com bi na ti o n, the tw o w ar ni ngs r eas onabl y c onvey ed Pow el l ’ s rig h t t o have an at torney pr ese nt, n ot onlyatthe outse t ofi nter ro gat i on, but at al l ti m es. P ow el l , 1 3 0 S

. C t
. a t 1 2 0 5
. Un l i k e th e wa r n i ng i n P ow el l , A gen t Re hg ’s statem en t of M i r anda r i ghts did notr easo nabl y c o nv eythe r i g htt o ha ve a n a tt o r ne y pr es en t “not onl y a t the o utseto finte rr oga ti on, bu t a t a l l ti m es. ” Id

. I n D uckw orth , the w arninggi ven t o the s uspect incl ud ed the adm oni ti on, “You have a ri ght to tal k to a l awy erf o r a dvi ce b efo r e we a sky o u a ny que st i o ns, a nd to h a v e h i m wi th y o u du r i ngque s t i o ning . ” 4 9 2 U. S

. at 19 8. Buta fte r a dvi singthe s us pec t th athe ha d the r i g ht to an at torney e ven if h e c ou l d not a ff or d to hi re o ne, the pol i c e offi ceral so tol d him , “W e hav e no way of gi v i n g y o u a law ye r, bu t o n e w ill be a p p oin te d for yo u , i f you w i sh, ifand w hen yo u go to co urt. ” Id

. Th e C ou rt f ound that thi s l anguage di d not m isle ad the suspect i nto bel i evi ng tha t he did n ot have the r i ght t o a l aw yer un less cha rges w ere fi led an d he w en t to cou rt. Rat he r, i ta c c ur a t e l y de s c r ib e d the p r o c e s s f o r o b t a i ning a pp oin te d co u n se l in t h at j u ris d ic t i o n . M i r anda its elf did notr equi re the pol i ce t o p ro vid e the l aw yero r have a s tat i on house la w ye r prese nt atal l ti m es to advi se ar re st ee s. D uckw orth , 492 U .S . a t 203-04. Th e C ou rt note d that M i r anda r equi re d onl y th at the pol i ce no t32 N o. 10

- 3894 q u es tio n a su sp ec t u n les s h e w aiv es h is rig h t t o c ou n se l. Id

. The Courtas ser ted thatr evi ew i ng co urts “nee d not exam i ne M i r anda w ar ni ngs a s i fco n strui ng a w i l l o r defini ng the te rm s o fan e ase m ent. ” D u ck w orth , 492 U

. S. at 203 ( quoti ng P rys ock, 453 U

. S. at 361)

. I nstea d, a r evi ew i ng co urt shoul d consi der wh et her the warni ngs re aso nably conve yed to the suspect hi s r i ghts as re quir ed by M i r anda

. D uckw orth , 49 2 U.S

. at20 3. S i m i l ar l y, i n P rys ock, the Court fo und that the w ar ni ngs gi ven w er e adequate e ven though notgi ven i n the usual ord er: I t i s cl earthatth e pol i ce in thi s ca se full y c onvey ed to r e s p o n d e n th i s r i g h t s a s r e q u i r e d b y Mi r a n d a . He w as tol d ofhi s r i ght t o have a l aw yerpre sent pri or to and du ri ng i nter ro gat i on, a n d h is ri ght t o have a law yer ap p ointed at no cost if he cou ld not a ff ord on e. T h es e w ar n in gs co n ve ye d to res p on d en t h is ri ght t o have a l aw ye r ap poi nted i fhe c oul d not affo rd on e p rior to an d d u rin g in te rro ga tio n . P ryso ck, 45 3 U.S

. at36 1. But W ysi ngerwas not i nfo rm ed “o fhi s r i g htt o ha ve a l awy erpr es en t pr i o r t o a nd dur i ng i nter ro gat i on. ” Id

. A l though there i s no part i cul ar l an g ua ge tha t m us t be us ed to c o nv eythe war ni ng s, a nd al th o ug h w e ar e no t to c o ns tr ue the wor ds o fthe w ar ni nga s i fr e a di ngthe t e r ms o fa wi l l o r a n e a s e men t, th e di ff er en ce bet w ee n a n “ an d” an d a n “ o r, ” depe ndi ng o n the co nt ex t, may ca us e a se r i o us mis unde r st an di ng of on e o fthe cor e M i r anda r i ghts. See M issou ri v. Seibert, 54 2 U. S

. 6 00 , 6 11 ( 20 04 ) ( pl ur ali ty) ( “[j ] us t as no tal i sm ani c i ncantati on i s r equi re d to sat i sfy [ M i r anda ’ s]N o. 10

- 3894 33 strictu res, . . . i t w ou ld be a b s u rd to think th at m ere re ci tat i on o fthe l i tany suffi ces to sat i sfy M i r anda i n ev ery concei vabl e ci rcum sta nc e”) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks an d citations om itted ). A per son giv en a choi ce b etween havi ng a l aw yer wi th h i m b e f o r e qu e s t i o n i n go r d u r i n gqu e s t i o ni ng m i g htwai t unt i l i t i s cl ea r that que st i o ni ngha s be g un bef or e invoking hi s r i ght t o counsel

. A s w e no ted abo ve, the M i r anda sa f eguar ds apply not o n l y t o express questi oni ng but al so to “ an y w or ds oract i ons on the par t o f the pol i ce ( othe r th an tho se nor m al l y a tte nd ant t o ar re st an d cu st od y) t h at t h e p olic e s h ou ld kn ow are rea so n ab ly l i kel y t o el icit an i ncri m i nati ng r esponse fro m the suspect. ” Innis , 4 46 U. S

. a t 30 0- 01

. Al th o ug h j udg es a nd law yers kn ow that i nt errogation e n c om p asses m ore th andi r ec t que st i o ni ng, the a ve r ag e ci ti ze n may b e unaw ar e that M i r anda ’s p ro te c tio n ex te n d s t o t h es e a d d it i o na l t a c t i c s . A c o r r e c t l y wo r ded M i r anda war ni ng avo i ds th is c onfusi on byal er ti ng the suspectthathe o r she has an i m m edi ate r i ght t o an at torne y a nd al so a rig h t t o h av e a n at to rn ey p re se n t d u rin g q u es tio n in g. See B erg h uis , 1 3 0 S

. C t
. a t 2 2 6 0 ( fu l l c o mpr e h e n s i o n o ft he rights to rem ain sil en t and to requ est an attorn ey are su fficie n t t o d isp el w h at ev er co er c ion is in h er en t in the i nter ro gat i on pro cess )

. But an i ncor re ctl y worded M i r anda warni ng, o ne th at s ugges ts that M i r anda r i ghts ap p ly only to d irect qu estioning or to the t im e before d ire ct ques ti oni ng, f ol l owed by di ver si onar y t acti cs that re dir ect the s uspect a w ay f ro m a ss erti ng tho se ri ghts, fru strat es the purpos e o fthe M i r anda p ro te c tio n s. See Seibert, 54 2 U.S

. at62 1- 22 ( noting tha t the M i r a nda r u le34 N o. 10

- 3894 woul d b e f r us tr at ed i fpo l i ce w er e al l o wed t o unde r m i ne i t s me a ninga nd e ff e c tb y u s i nga t e c hn i qu e tha tc r eat es to o h igh a ris k t h at a p os t- w a r n i n g s ta te m en t w ou ld b e o b ta in ed w h en a su sp ec t w as d ep r i v e d of th e “ kn ow ledge e sse nti alto hi s abi l i ty to und er sta nd the natur e o f hi s r i ghts and the co nsequences of abandoni ng the m . ”) ( Kennedy, J

. , c o nc ur r i ngi n the j udg m en t) ( quo ting M or an v. Bur b i ne, 475 U

. S. 412, 423-24 (1986 ))

.
2. Perh a ps thi s e r r o r i n wo r di ng a l o ne wo ul d no t be enough t o necess i tat e the excl usi on o f the enti re vi deotaped i nter ro gat i on i fi t was o th er w i se cl earthat W y sing erpr o per l y u nd erst o o d hi s r i g ht s i n the c o nt ex t i n w h ich t hey were gi ven. But W ysi ngerco ntends that th e war ni nga ppea r ed to c ondi ti o n h i s r i g ht s o n the beginning of“quest i oni ng” a n d the ag ents then i m pli ed that questi oni ng had not yetbegun. A c cor ding to W ys in ge r, th e a ge n ts rep ea te d ly a tt em p te d to d ive rth is at te nt i o n fr o m a ss er ting h i s r i g ht s. The di ve r si o n b eg an, ac co r di ngt o W y sing er, o ne m i nut e i nt o th e i nt er r o g at i o n, wh e n h e a s k e d Ag e n tRe h g, “ Do I ne e d a l a wy e r b e f o r e we st ar t ta l k i ng ?” an d Age nt Re hg r epl i ed, “Wel l, we’ r e g o i ng to tal k about that.” B ut the age nt di d not a nsw er Wy s i n g e r ’ s qu e s t i o n u n t i l h e a s k e d i ta s e c o n d t i me ap p r o xi m at el y ni ne min ut es l at er . I ns te ad o fa ns wer i ng W ys in ge r’s firs t q u es tio n, A ge n t R eh g re ad W ys in ge r h is r i g ht s as we det ai l ed ab o ve . Nea r the c o nc l us i o n o fthe ambi g uo us l y phras ed war ni ng, Age ntRe hgs l amm ed th e ta b le l ou d ly, st ar tlin g W ys in ge r an d fu rt h er d ive rt in g h imN o. 10

- 3894 35 f ro m the questi on he had j ust a ske d re gar ding hi s nee d fo r a l aw yer. A fterdeter m i ni ng tha t W ysi ngerhad bee n a r r e s t e d p r e vi o us l y o nl y f o r p e t t y c r i mes a nd l a c k e d a hi gh sc hoolo r col l ege educati on, A gent R eh g then r epea te dl y i m pl i ed that que st i o ni ngha d no t y etb egun. H e fi rst told W ysinger: Yo u kno w, l i st en, we’ r e g o i ngt o c utt o t he c ha se , a nd w e’ re go i ng to l ay i t o ut f oryo u a li ttl e bi t. It ’ s goi ng to be up to y ou whaty o u wan t to do

. . . . I ’ m g o nna tel l yo u w hat the st or y i s. You l i ste n f ora m i nute. Video at 1 2:5 5- 12: 56; R. 28 7, Tr. at10 5- 06. Thi s i m pli ed th at W ysi ngerco uld deci de w hetherto exer ci se h is rig h t s a fte r A ge n t R eh g “ la[id ] it ou t fo r” h im an d to ld hi m “ whatthe s to r y is, ” an d tha t, i n the mean ti m e, he sh ou l d “ l i st en for a m in u te .” T h e t im e t o in vo ke h is ri ghts, i n other w or ds, had not yetar ri ved. The “s tor y” c o ns i s t e d o fAg e ntR e hgt e l l i ngWys i ng e r tha tthe DE A had been watchi ng hi m si nce the pri or y ear, thatthey ha d se iz ed dr ug s f r o m hi s br o th era nd b o thdr ug s an d cash fro m so m e o fhi s a sso ci ates, and had i nter cepted a num bero fph one cal l s i nvol vi ng W ysi nger, hi s br othe r and other s. N ot surpri singl y, thi s pro voca ti ve speech p rom p ted som e incrim inating resp ons es from W ysing e r, as th e s p ee c h w as u n d ou b te d ly d es ign ed to d o. See M i r anda , 38 4 U.S

. at45 0 ( describi ng the i nter ro gat i on tact ics ofdisp layi ng an air of c o n fi d en ce in th e sus p ect’s g ui l t an d a ppea r i ngt o b e in te r es te d o nl y i n c o nfi r m i ng c er ta in d et ails ); Innis , 4 46 U

. S. at29 9 ( noti ng tha t t acti cs su cha s po si tingthe g ui l t o fthe sus pec t, min i m i zing th e mo r a l s e r i o u s n e s s o ft h e o ff e n s e , a n d c a s t i n gb l a me36 N o. 10

- 3894

That st atem ent w as: “There’ s a w h o le lotofm otherfuckers 10 in Te xa s I do n otl i ke

. . . . And I t el l m othe rfuc ke rs , i n this gam e, you don’ tfuc k with th os e peo pl e, ‘ c aus e you m ake en em i es . You kno w w hatI ’ m s ayi ng? Y ou al ways ke ep the m othe rfuc ke r happy i fyou d oin g thi s type ofs hi t‘ c aus e the m o t h e r fu c k e r c o m e b a c k to h a u n ty o u . Y o u k n o w w h a tI’m sayi ng?” V ideo at 13: 00 . T he governm ent m ade repeated re f er en c es t o thi s s t at em en tthr ougho utt ri al an d cl os i ng ar gum en t s . The gove rn m en tar gue d t o the j ur y thatthe (co n tin u ed ...) o n the v i ct i m o r s o ci ety, i n a c us tod ia l s et ting, a m o unt to int er ro ga tio n as effe c tiv e a s e x p re ss qu es tio n in g). A gen t Re hg then told W ysing e r that “basically there ar e tw o choi ces here

. ” Inter est i ngl y, n ei thero fthem i nv o l ve d i nv o k i nghi s r i g htt o r emai n si lent o r hi s r i g ht to h av e c ou n se l p re se n t. Ins te ad , A ge n t R eh g t old W ysinger: If you to ta lly

— i fyo u didn’twan t to tal k with us, dow n the ro ad m ostli kel y y ou’ re go i ng to be charg ed w i th conspi ra cy to dist ribute coca i ne. Conspir acy is a t ough char ge. Video at12 : 59; R . 2 87 , T r. at10 8. A ftera re sponse f ro m W ysi nger, A gent Rehg pre sente d the o therchoi ce, co op er at ion , fra m ed as w h et h er W ys in ge r w an te d to “ h elp [ hi m ]self

. ” W y sing erwas f armor e i nt er es te d i n h el pi ng hi s br o th erb utAge ntReh gc l ea r l y t o l d hi m the charg es aga i nst hi s bro ther w oul d no t be dism i sse d. A fter W ysi ngerm ade ar guabl y the m ost i ncri m i nati ng st ate
m en t o f th e i n t e r r og at ion , A ge n t R eh g a ga in to ld h im 10N o. 10

- 3894 37

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 10

“ g a m e” to w h ic h W y sin g er re fer re d is th e “ d ru g b u sin es s.” R

. 290, Tr. at 23. he was go i ng to exp l ai n “how thi s w or ks. ” Video at 13: 00; R. 28 7, Tr. at10 9. The ag ent then descr ibed the proc ess ofco oper ati on . W ysi ngerag ai n tr i ed to st ri ke a dealto benefi t hi s br othe r, but A gent Reh g m ad e i t cl earthat Tryd W ysi nger ’ s f ate was i n the h an d s o fthe U ni ted St at es A tt or n ey an d th e jud ge as sig n ed to th e c as e. At tha t po i nt, A gent Re hgfi na l l y i ndi ca te d tha t th e “questi oning” part ofthe m eet i ng was com m enci ng, statin g, “W ell, tell us w ha t has been goi ng on. M aybe that ’s the b estway to st ar t. ” Vi deo at13 : 03 ; R . 2 87, Tr. at11 1. By i nd i cating t h at thi s was “the be st w ay to start,” A gent Rehg co nfi rm ed that thi s was the beginning of questi oni ng , im ply i ng tha t the fi rs t ni ne m i nutes o f th e me e t i n gd i d n o tc o n s t i t u t e i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h i s i mpli cati on, o fco urse , was contr ar y t o the b ro ad defini tio n ofi nter ro gat i on a dopted by the S u p re m e Cour t, wh i ch includ es an y w ord s th at th e p oli ce shou ld kn o w a re like ly to e licita n inc rim in at in g re sp on se . Innis , 44 6 U.S

. at 30 0- 01

. F o r the fi r stt i m e s in ce the i nt er r o g at i o n b eg an, Age ntRe hgfl i pped o penhi s no tebooka nd pul l ed o ut a pen. A t thi s, W ysi ngerse em ed to r ec ogni ze that “questio n in g” w as st ar tin g a n d h e t h e n c lea rly inv ok ed h is rig h t t o a law ye r as w e c on c lu d ed ab ov e. A lthou gh w e hav e already de term ined that the cou rt s h o u l d h a v e e x c l u d e d th e v i d e o fr o m th a tp o i nt forw a r d , w e w il l recou nt the con tinu ed pa ttern of d iver-38 N o. 10

- 3894 sio n be c au se it rela te s t o a n d su p p o r t s W ys in ge r’s cla im ofm isl eadi ng M i r anda war ni ng s. Ra th ertha n r es po nd to W ysi nger ’ s d ire c t a nd i m m edi ate questi on o fwh ether he c o ul d c al l a n a tt o r ne y a t th ati ns ta nt, A gent Re hg ag ain di ve rted W y sing er : he a sk ed que st i o ns abo utthe l aw yer, ga ve som e incor re c t “advi ce” about w hether W ysi ngerco uld use the sam e l aw yert h at hi s br othe r w as usi ng, and continued the i nter ro gat ion f ortwentyth re e m o r e m in u te s. See Lee, 4 13 F

. 3d at6 27( ex pr es sing c o nc e r n o v e r p o l i c e t ac t i c s o fa t t e mpt i ngt o p e r s ua de suspect w ho had j u st in voked hi s r i ght t o counselto gi ve up hi s a sse rt ed righ t)

. Duri ng thi s t i m e, W ysi nger str uggl ed to r em em berthe nam e and phone num bero f the a tto rney, m ade a f ew m or e incri m i nati ng st ate
m en ts , a sk ed th e ag en ts i fthe y c o ul d retri ev e th e law ye r’s p h on e n u m b er from h is v an , an d fina lly r epe at ed y eta g ain h i s des i r e to call th e l awy er, a sk i ng th e a ge n t t o ge t t h e n u m b er for h im s o t h at h e c ou ld “cal l thi s a tto rney, ge t hi s a dvic e. ” Vi de o at 13: 07; R. 28 7, Tr. at11 4. A gent Rehg hi m sel fte sti fi ed at tr i althatwh en W ysi nger sai d he did notwant to cro ss any l i nes a n d t hen r egr et it, he underst oo d that W ysi ngerdi d not wis h to speak w i thout an at torney: H e wanted to w or k with us, he w an te d to coo perat e. H e j ust di dn ’t w an t t o tel l us about hi s drug deal i ngs a tth a tt i me u n t i l h e h a d a n a t t o r ne y w i thu s . He di dn’ t wantt o c r o ss the l i ne , a s he s ai d, unt i l he had an att or ney. R. 28 7, Tr. a t 125. A gent Rehg was i nter preting a sta tem en t W ysi ngerm ade atti m e ind ex 13 : 06, o ne m i nuteN o. 10

- 3894 39 bef or e W ysi ngersa i d, “I ’ m go i ng to cal l thi s a tto rney, g e t h i s a d v i c e , ” a n d s o me t we n t y mi n u t e s b e f o r e t he e nd of the vide o. A g e n t R e hg thu s con ced ed that he u nd erst o o d tha t W y sing erha d i nv o k ed his r i g htt o c o uns elno l ate r than ti m e ind ex 13 : 06. I f t h er e w as any doubt abou t t h e agen t’s use of tactics inten d ed to divert W ysingerfr o m a ss er tinghi s r i ght s, Age ntRe hg ’ s co ntinua ti o n ofi nt er r o g at i o n a fte r tha t m o m en t demonstr ate d the s tr ate gy f ro m the beginning. SeeSm it h , 469 U

. S. at98 ( the Ed war ds br igh t-lin e ru le

— that al l questi oni ng m ust s top a fteran a ccused req uests counsel

— p reven ts th e p o li ce, throu gh bad gering or overre achi ng, wh etherex p l i ci t o r subtl e, wh etherdel iber ate o r unint en ti o na l, fr o m w ea r i ngdo wn th e ac cus ed an d per su adi nghi m t o i nc r i m i na te him se l fno twi th st an di ng his earli er requ est for coun sel). I n su m , a fte r W y sing era sk ed i n the fi r stmin ut e o fthe i nter ro gat i on i fhe s houl d cal l a l aw ye r, A gent Rehg fi rs t to l d W y sin ge r th at th ey w er e “ go in g t o t alk ab ou t t h at,” an d th en rea d a p ot en tia lly m isle ad in g ve rs ion of h is ri ghts , one that put W ysi ngerto the f al se choi ce o f t a l k i ngt o a l a wy e r b e f o r e que s t i o ningo r h avi ng a law y e r w ith him du ring qu estioning
. Rat he r than corre cti ng thi s e rr or, the age nt the n m agni fi ed the m i sta ke by re peatedl y i m ply i ng that “questi oni ng” had n ot ye t be g un. The a g en t th enna r r o wed W y sing er ’ s o pti o ns ev en fu rt h er , tellin g h im h e h ad tw o c h oic es , na m ely c o o p e r a t i n g o r b e i n g c h a r g e d wi th c o n s p i r a c y . The a g e n tf a i l e d t o me n t i o n th a tWy s i n g e r h a d t wo o th e r o p t i o n s : t o r e ma i n s i l e n t, o r t o c o n s u l ta l a wy e r i mm ed iately an d to have one w ith him du ring the in t e r-40 N o. 10

- 3894

ro gat i on. W hen i t was obvi ous t o W ysi ngerthat“questi o ni ng ” ha d b egun, he i m m edi at el y i nv o k ed hi s righ t to co u n se l. Even afterA gent Rehg cl ear l y r eco gni zed thatW ysi nger had ask ed fo r a l aw yer, and afterthe age nt per m i tte d W y s i ng e r t o c a l l a n a t t o r ne y, h e c o nt i nu e d t o i nt e r r o gat e W ysi ngerand continued to c om pound the m i si m pressi o n h e cr ea te d b y e m pha si zing“ que st i o ni ng ” as the trigger f or M i r anda pro tect i ons: The deal i s thi s. I fwe deci de to r el ea se you to day, an d ag ain , Iam notas ki ng you q ue s t i ons . You wan tan a tto rney . Let m e j u s t g i ve y o u so m e ad vic e. I fyo u have an y ho pes o fc o o per at i ng, you n ee d t o l ea ve i t al o ne d ow n h ere. O nly p erson you c a n t a lk to d ow n h ere i s y our att or n ey. Don’ t be ta l ki ng to anyb ody e l se, any o fthe guys that w e’ re ta l ki ng to
. Vi deo a t 13 : 21 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 11 8- 19 ( emphas i s adde d)

. The age nt thus conti nued to draw a di sti ncti on be tw een “quest ioni ng” a nd “a dvic e, ” bo th o fwh i ch qual i fy a s i nter ro gat i on under wel l

- est abli shed sta nd ar ds w hen the “ advi ce” i s l i kel y t o elici t a n i ncri m i nati ng r esponse . W y sing er, who ha d a l r ea dy show n ag i ta ti o n a t th e m ention of coo perat i ng witne sse s, pre dict abl y r eact ed to thi s new re f er ence, and threa tened to “hurt som ebo dy, ” a thre at that the g ove rnm ent pl aye d up du ri ng the tr i alas evi dence ofW ys inger ’ s i nvol vem ent in the conspi ra cy. A gent Rehg’ s e nsu ing t acti cs, wh i ch m ay have been perfectl y a cceptabl e in the conte x t of a pro per w ar ni ng, e xa c e rb a t e d the mi s i mpr e s s i o n c r e a t e d b y the b otc hed w ar ni ng.N o. 10

- 3894 41 “[ T]he pros ecuti on m ay not us e s tat em ents, wh ether ex c u l pator y o r i nculpato ry, st em m i ng fro m custo dial i nt er r o g at i o n o fthe de f en dan t unl es s i t demons tr at es ” th e use o fthe M i r anda sa feg u ar d s. M i r anda , 38 4 U.S

. at44 4. S e ea l s o Br own v . Il l i nois , 42 2 U.S

. 59 0, 60 4 ( 1975 ) ( the b urden ofshow in g adm i ssibi l i ty re sts o n the pros ecuti on ). The g ove rnm ent f ai l ed to m eeti ts burden of d em ons trating th at p ro p e r M i r anda w arn ings w ere gi ven. Because th e warni ng Agent Rehg g ave appli ed onl y t o “questi oni ng, ” be cause i t e rr oneou sl y s ugges ted th a tWys i ng e r h a d t o c ho o s e b e t we e n ha v i nga l aw yer pr es en t be f o r e que st i o ni ngo r dur i ngque st i o ni ng, a nd because the age nts use d var i ous tacti cs t o confuse W y si ng err eg ar di ngthe s ta r t o f“ que st i o ni ng ” an d di ve r t h i m fr o m e x e r c i s i n gh i s r i g h t s , we a g r e e th a tthe w ar ni ng was i nadequ ate and m isle ading

. The di str i ct co ur t, the r efo r e, s ho ul d have ex cl ude d the fi r stni ne m i nutes o f the vi deotaped i nter ro gat i on. Com bi ned w i th our prior c oncl usi on that e ver ythi ng afterW ysi nger i nv o k ed hi s r i g htt o c o uns els ho ul d ha ve been e xcl ud e d, thi s l e a ds t o o urc o nc l us i o n tha tthe e nt i r e v i deotaped i nter ro gat i on was i nadm i ssibl e.

C. The go ver nm ent c onte nd s that, i fther e was any er ro r i n a d mi t t i ng th e v i d e o , th e e r r o r wa s h a r ml e s s . An er ro r i s h ar m les s if it “d oe s n ot affe c t s u b st an tia l righ ts .” F e d. R. Cr i m. P. 5 2 ( a )

. “ To b e ha r ml e s s , a n e rr or m ust h av e no a ff ect [ si c] o n the outco m e o fthe tr i al

. ” Lee, 41 342 N o. 10

- 3894 F

. 3d at6 27
. The g o ve r nm en t as se r ts tha t, even abs en t th e vide o, the evid en ce at trial estab li sh ing W ysinger’s g ui l t was “ o ve r whel m i ng . ” The g o ve r nm en t ci te s th e tes ti m ony ofthe thre e co oper ati ng co - conspi ra tor s, M o nt ez Do ug l as , Kei th Hol m es a nd S eb as ti o n Robi ns o n. The gov er nm ent al so poi nts to the m oney and drugs se i ze d fr o m o th er s i n the c o ns pi r acy, i nc l udi ngthe $54, 000 that W ysi ngercl aim ed as hi s o w n i n hi s pos thol i day cal l with Agent Rehg. The go ver nm ent a l so ar g ue s th atW y sing erne ve r c o nfes se d t o b eing a dr ug deal ero n the vi deo, l ess eni ng any prej ud i ci aleff ect. We c a n n o ta g r e e th a tt h e o th e re v i d e n c e wa s o v e r wh e l mi ng. The va st m aj or i ty ofthe evidence aga i nst W ysi nger cam e fr om co oper ati ng co - conspi ra tor s who each had s t r o n gmo t i v e s to l i e a n d t o c a s tb l a me a wa y fr o m th e msel ves. Both H olm es and Robi nson, f orexam ple , had be enc au gh t wi thdr ug s an d/ o r l ar g e amoun ts o fc as h. U nl i ke the witnesse s aga inst hi m , W ysi ngerwas not perso nal l y f ound in posse ssi on o fdrugs orl ar ge amoun ts o fc as h. And W y singer w as ne ve r t i ed to the ce ll p hon e us ed to make the c al l s th atthe g o ve r nm en t as se r te d c o nne ct ed hi m to dr ug s o r m o ne y . Tr ue , s o m eo ne c laim in g t o b e W y s in ge r c alle d A ge n t R eh g t o c laim o wner sh i p o fthe $ 54, 00 0 se i ze d fr o m Tr y d’ s va n. But wi th o utthe v i deo , the o nl y e vi den ce c o nne ct i ng W ysi ngerto thatcal l is A gent Rehg’ s v oi ce i denti fi cati on o fW y sing er . Tha t r ec o r ded ca l l was clea r l y i m po r ta nt to the j ury, as i t was o ne o ftwo pi eces of e vid ence that the j ury re quested to r evi ew duri ng del iber ati ons. M or eov er, the gov er nm ent’ s cl ai m thatthe prej ud icial eff ect ofthe vi d eo w as dim i ni shed beca use W ysi ngerN o. 10

- 3894 43 di d no t admi t to b einga dr ugde al eri s be l i ed bythe go v e r nme nt ’ s us e o f the v i de o a t t r i a l, a nd b y i ts obvio u s im p or ta n c e t o t h e jur y. SeeInnis , 44 6 U.S

. at30 1 n. 5 ( defini ng “inc rim i nati ng r esponse ” a s “ any r esponse

— w he th er i nc ulp atory or exc ulp atory

— th atthe pr os e cu t i on m ay se ek to in t r o d u c e a t t ria l”) (e m p h as is in orig in al); M i r anda , 38 4 U.S

. at47 6-77 (“N o dist i nction can b e d raw n be tw een statem en ts w hich are di r e c tc o nfe s s i o ns a nd s t a t e men t s wh i ch amo un tt o ‘ a dm i ssi ons’ o fparto r al l ofan o ff ense. The pri vi l ege aga i n st sel f

- i ncri m i nati on pro tect s the i nd i vi du alfro m being co m p ell ed to i nc rim inate h im self in any m an ne r; i td o e s n o td i s t i n g u i s h d e g r e e s o fi n c r i mi na t i o n . ” )

. At tr i al, the gov er nm ent fi rs t s how ed the vid eo once i n i ts enti re ty and then di spl aye d tw o se gm en ts ofthe vi deo ag ain dur i ngAge ntRe hg ’ s te st i m o ny . In pa r ti cul ar, the govern m e n t rep layed the p art of th e video w he re W ysinger sai d , “T he re’s a w hole lot of m oth erfuck ers in T e x a s I d o n ot like. . .

. A n d I te ll m ot h er fu c ke rs , in thi s g am e, yo u don’tfuck with thos e people , ‘ cause you m ake enem i es. You kno w wh at I ’ m sa yi ng? You alw ay s k ee p th e m ot h er fu c ke r h ap p y if yo u d oin g t h is type ofshi t ‘ cause the m othe rfuckerc om e backto haunt you. ” A gent Rehg expla i ned that he u nd er sto od W ysi ngerto m ean that he m i ght b e wil l i ng to co op er ate ag ains t ce r ta i n i ndi vi dual s i n Te xa s he di d no t l i k e, a nd th at th e “ g ame” i n W y sing er ’ s st at ementi s th e “dr ug g ame. ” R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 12 4. I n t o ta l, the g o ve rnm en t m a n a ge d to refe r to th is s ta te m en t n o fe w er th an six tim es d u rin g t h e t ria l, an d th e jur y w as ex p os e d to it a se ve nth ti m e when th e vi deo was r epl ayed d ur i ng44 N o. 10

- 3894 del iber ati ons. I n additi on t o show i ng the st ate m ent t o th e j ur y t wi ce dur i ngAge ntRe hg ’ s te st i m o ny, Age nt Re hg par aph r as ed th e st at ement, an d th e g o ve r nm en t m entio n ed i t o nce duri ng cl osing ar gum ent a nd twice m or e d u rin g re b u tt al. The g o ve r nm en t al so r epl ay ed W y sing er ’ s st atement i nd i cating he w as consi deri ng co oper ati ng: Ij ust don’ t want to cr oss no l ines, and then, yo u know w hat I ’ m sa yi ng, reg re t s hi t. Im ean, Iwant to w or k with yo u. You kno w wh at I ’ m sa yi ng? Vi deo at 1 3: 06 ; R. 2 87, Tr

. a t 11 3 an d 1 25
. Age ntRe hg exp lai ne d tha t he unde r st o o d W y sing ert o meantha t he want e d t o c o o p e r a t e b u td i d n o twa n tt o d i s c u s s h i s dr ug deal i ng unti l he ha d an att or ney prese nt. R

. 28 7, Tr. at12 5. I n a d d iti on t o t wo pl ay i ng s dur i ngt r i ala nd o ne dur i ng d eliberat ions, th e govern m en t m en tioned W ysinger’s r efer en ce t o po ss ibl e co op erati o n dur i ngc l o singa r g um en ts a s wel l

. Gi ve n the pr o m i ne nc e th e g o ve r nm en t gave to thes e an d otherst ate m ents f ro m the i nter ro gati on a t t ri al, and gi ven that the ju ry its el facc or ded spe ci ali m p o r ta nc e to the v i deo , the e r r o r i n a dm i tt i ng th e vi deo l i k el y a ff ected the o ut co m e o fthe t r i ala nd thus was not harm l ess .
D. W ysi ngeral so ar gues that adm i tt in g the por ti ons of the v i deo duri ng wh i ch W ysi ngerspok e t o hi s a tto rney on the phone vi ol ate d a S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o p rivate and confide nt ialcom m un ication w ith his attor-N o. 10

- 3894 45 ney. The go ver nm ent c onte nd s that W ys ingerwaive d thi s cl ai m by notr ai si ng i t be l ow. Because we have alr ea d y ru led th at th is p or tio n of th e v id eo sh ou ld h av e b ee n ex c lu d ed be c au se W ys in ge r h ad cle ar ly invoked his ri gh t to cou ns el und e r M i r anda , we need not add re ss ei th erthe cl ai m o fwaive r orthe m er i ts of the i ssue.

III. For the reas ons st ated above, w e vaca te W ysinger’s convi ction and re m and fo r proce edi ngs c onsi ste nt with thi s o pini on. A ny r etr i alm ay n ot include any part of th e vi deo i n the g o ve r nm en t’ s ca se - i n- ch i ef

. W e th an k W y s i ng e r ’ s a pp o i nt e d c o un s e l f o r the i r v i gor ous a dvoca cy on his beh alf

. V ACATED AND R EMAND ED .

6- 22- 12