2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-2-2008 

# U SA v . Gr ee n
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ocke t N o . 06-2468

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Gr e e n " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 462. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/462P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 2468

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v . AR T E GA GR E E N,
A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r t h e D ist ri ct of

D elaw are ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00105) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. G r egor yM

. Sl eet

A r gued J une 5, 2008
B E F O R E : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S a n d C O W E N , C irc u it J udges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember 2, 2008)2 St ephen P. Pat r i zi o, E s q. ( A r gued) 1500 J ohn F. K ennedyB oul evar d, Sui t e 1205 T w o Penn C ent erPl aza , Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102
C ouns el forA ppel l ant
R ober t F. K r avet z, E s q. ( A r gued) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1007 N or t h O r ange St r eet , Sui t e 700 P. O

. B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899
C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ON

C O W E N , C i r cui t J udge. D efen dan t A rt ega G reen w as 

### c onvi c t e d by ajury of one co un t o f d istrib u tio no f

m o re th an 5 0 g ram s o f

co cain e b ase in v io latio no f 2 1 U .S .C

. § 8 4 1 . T h e D istrict C o urt sen ten cedh im to a te rm o f

im p riso n m en t o f

1 5 1 m o n th s. D ef

en d an t tim ely a ppe a l s fr om

both hi s c onvi c t i on and s e nt e nc e . For the r e a s ons s e t forth be l ow, we wi l l va c at e the judgm e nt of c onvi c t i on and rem an df o r a n ewtrial. I

. FA CT UA L B AC KG RO UN D AND PR OC EDUR AL HI STORYT he vi deo w as fi r s t i nt r oduced, not byt he G over nm ent , but 1 b y d efe ns e couns el dur i ng hi s cr os s - exami nat i on of Speci al A gentH ughes

. T he par t i es s ubs equent l y agr eed t o i nt r oduce the v id e o re c o rd in g a s a jo in t e x h ib it. 3 

### D ef en d an t’s curren t co n v ictio nis p rem i s e d upon a s i n g le c ontr ol l e d nar c ot i c s trans a c t i on whi c h oc c urr e d on May 14, 2002. Howe ve r , Gr e e n ha d a ppar e n tly b een at ar ge t

of Dr ug Enfor c e m e nt Age nc y ( “ DEA” ) i nve s t i gat i ve e ffort s s i nc e 2000, and w as the s ub

ject of a n um ber o f other att em

pted controll ed buy s fr om

2000 t o 2002. But the May 2002 tr ans a c t i on wa s the o n ly o n e f o r w h ichh e w as ch arg ed . D E A S p ecial A g en t D av id H u g h es an dT askF o rce O f f icer L aw ren ce C o llin s w ere th e case ag en ts; b o thw ere s up erv isedb y D E A S p ecial A g en t E ric Mill er . T he DE A’s c on fidentia l i nf orm ant ( “CI” ), Michae l B ro w n , p articip atedinth e b uy . W i th r e gar d t o th e May 2002 tr ans a c t i on, the G o v ern m en t’s ev id en ce ag ain st G reen , as p resen ted durin g its c a s e - i n - c h i e f

, c o n s i s t e d

of: the t e s t i m oni e s of Spe c i a l Age nt s ( 1) Hughe s , and ( 2) Mi l l e r , ( 3) an audi o r e c or di ng i n whi c h the CI ca ll ed a c el l pho ne nu m

ber “ as soci at ed with” Gree n andordered 3 ounc e s of c oc a i ne ba s e , and ( 4) a vi de o i n whi c h the CI 1 

### a l leg ed l y e nga ge d i n adr

ug tr ans a c t i on wi th De fe ndant

. The video w as of

re lati vely

low quali ty , an d on ly

brie fly depict ed the p rofile of the all eged perpetrator; thus, k ey to the defense ’s c a s e wa s t o c a s t

doubt as to w he the r

Gr e e n wa s i n fa c t

the pers ondepict ed. Simil ar ly , the au d io re cording con si st ed m e r e l y of atwo- s e c ond phone c a l l i n whi c h the r e c i pi e nt of the c a l l ( Gr e e n, a l l e ge dl y) s a i d “ What ’ s up do g, wh at ’ s the de a l ?”4 

### and a gr e e d t o the buy

. T h e o n ly e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d by

the Gove rnm e nt i n i t s c a s e - i n- c hi e f di r e c t l y c onne c t i ng De fe ndant to both the audi o and vi de o wa s the t e s t i m ony of the a ge nt s. H u g h es testif

iedh e reco g n izedG reen ’ s v o ice o nth e au d io r e c or di ng, Mi l l e r

s t at e d he r e c ogni z e d Gr e e n on the vi de o and that he ob se rved Green ar

ri ve at the l ocat ion o f the con trolle d bu y and enter

the pre m is es w it

h the CI (where t

he video s urve i l l anc e t ook pl a c e )

. Howe ve r , th e CI i nvol ve d i n the tr an s a c t i o n , B r o w n , t e s t i f i e df o r th e d e f e n s e at tr i a l th at the in d iv idu al o nth e v id eo w as n o t D ef en d an t. I I

. DI SC US SI ON The Di s tr i c t

Court ha d jur i s di c t i on pur s uant t o 18 U. S. C. § 3231. W e have a

ppe l l at e jur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the judgm e nt and r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291 an d1 8 U. S. C. § 3 7 4 2 (a). O n a p p e a l, 

### Defend ant r ai se s a nu m ber o f iss ues: wh ether (1) the Distri ct

Co urt e rr ed by

adm itti ng Brow n’s pri or writte n st at em ent u n d erthe “ pres ent s ense im pres si on ” hears ay e xc e pt i on; ( 2) the Gove rnm e nt vi ol at e d i t s Br a dy

v. Maryl and d isclo sure o b lig atio n s; (3 ) th e p ro secu t o r en g ag edin m is conduct i n h er

summ at ion b y re ferr ing to D efendant’s r e a c t i o n s a f

t e r v i e w i n g o f

th e v i d e o o f

th e c o n tr o l l e db uy; wh ether the Distri ct

Co urt e rr ed (4) i n all ow ing j ury to re view tran scrip ts o f au d io tap e id en tif yin g D ef en d an t b y n am e; (5 ) in attributing add it ional drug quantit ie s t o D ef en dant at se ntenci ng ; and(6) i n d et er m ining that th e d ru g inv olved w as crackco cain e. B eca us e w e conc l ude t hatt he e rror s as t o t he a d m iss io n o f

th e C I’s sta tem e n t an d o f re f e re n c e s toD efe ndant d ev o tes m u ch of hi s at t ent i on t o t he B r adyv. 2 M a ry lan d iss u e o n a p p e a l. T h e th ru st o f G re e n ’s c o m p lain t is t h at the G over nm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e t he ext entof t he D E A ’s p rio r e n c o u n ter s w ith h im p re ju d ice d h is a b ili tyto eff ect i vel ycr os s - exami ne Speci al A gent s H ughes and M i l l eron t h e b a s i s o f

t h e i r i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n s o f

h i s v o i c e a n d l i k e n e s s . He cl ai m s t he pr ej udi ce i nur i ng fr om t hi s om i s s i on i s evi dentgi ven t he tr ansact i on s t hat al l eg e d ly form ed the basi s of t he ag ents ’ fa m il iari tyw ith h im w ere o n es f o r w h ich th e D ist ri ct C o u rt re jec ted (u p o n a p re p o n d e ra n c e sta n d a rd ) a s i n su f f icie n tly at t r i but abl e t o D efe ndantt o w ar r antr ecogni t i on as r el evant conductats ent enci ng. W e under s t an d the ar gum ent

. B ut b e c a u s e t h i s i s s u e wa s n o t f o r ma l l yr a i s e d a n d l i t i g a t e d b e l o w, w e a re th u s u n a b le to m a k e th e re q u isite m a ter iality det er m i nat i on bas ed on t he r ecor d befor e us . See U ni t ed St at es v . B a g ley, 4 7 3 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 8 2 -8 4 ( 1 9 8 5 ) (re lev a n t sta n d a rd is r easo n abl e pr obabi l i t yof di ffe r entout come at t r i al had im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e b e e n d is c lo s e d ).
5 D efe ndant ’ s cus t odi al r es pons es w ar r ant a new t r i al , w e do not reach t he rem ai ning i ssues. 2 A

. A dm i s s i on of M i chae l B r ow n’ s St at ement T he crux of t he G over nm ent ’s cas e w as pr ovi ng t he i dent i t yof the indi vi dual captur ed on i t s audi o and vi deo evi dence

. I t s ought t o do t hi s excl us i vel yt hr ough t he tes tim o n ies o f

A g e n ts H u g h e s a n d M ill e r. I n a ra th e r d ra m a tic tu rn o f e v e n ts , 

### howe ve r , Mi c ha e l Br own, the CI i nvol ve d i n the co ntr ol l e d tr ans a c t i on, t e s t i fi e d a s the s ol e de fe ns e wi tness. Ac c or di ng t o Br own, De fe ndant ne ve r got out of the c ar on the6 

### day of the buy , and the pe r s on de pi c t e d on the vi de o s e l l i ng the drug s was an individu al kn ow n as “ Tex.” Brown al so st at ed that the DE A a gents had use d him befo re in oth ercontroll ed buy s , alw ay s w ith the goa l of c at c hi ng Gr e e n on t a pe s e l l i ng dr ug s ; but the y we r e ne ve r

s uc c e s s fu l , andwe r e up s e t at Br ow n be c aus e of th i s . He wa s e xt e ns i ve l y c r os s - e xam i ne d by

the Assi st ant Unite d State s Attorney (“ AU SA ”) , who was a ll ow ed to el ic it from Brow n, withou t defense o b j ec ti on , that he had previously

pu rc hase d drugs fromDefend ant o n sever al o ccasio n s. Aft e r Br own wa s e xc us ed f

r om the wi tne s s s t and, the p ro secu t i o ncalledS p ecial A g en t M iller as a reb u ttal w itn ess. Thr ough Mi l l e r , and ove r De fe ndant ’ s vi gor ous obje c t i on, the Gove rnm e nt

wa s pe rm i tt e d

t o i ntr oduc e a s s ubs t ant i ve evidence a s tate m ent th at Brow n p urpo rt edly m ade s om e 50 m inutes fol l owi ng the c ontr ol l e d buy i n que s t i on, a ft e r

he wa s br ought b ackto D E A o f

f ices an dd eb rief

edb y th e case ag en ts. Init, Br own att e s t e d that

i t wa s Gr e e n who s ol d hi m the dr ugs . The st at em ent was si gn ed by Brow n, and was witnes se d andsi gn ed by the a ge nt s a s well. A lth ough the de fe ns e ar gue d that the s t at e m e nt s houl d not

have be e n a dm i tt e d unde r Fe de r a lRul e of Evi de nc e 613( b) be c aus e Br own ha d not be e n gi ve n the op po rt un it y to explai n o r deny

it onthe s tand , the Distri ct

Co urt adm ittedth e statem en t, p ursu an t to th e p ro secu tio n ’s arg um en t, a s apr e s e nt

- s e ns e i m

pr e s s i on unde r

Rul e 803( 1)

. No l i m i t i ng in stru ctio nw as g iv en . W e gene r al l yr evi ew a t ri al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o admi t or excl ude evide n ce forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol ow , 91 F. 3d 396, 402 ( 3d C i r . 1996)

. B ut w her e t he evi dent i ar y det er m i nat i on i s pr emi s ed upon an i nt erpr et at i on of7 t he fe der al r ul es , our r evi ew i s pl enary . I d. H er e, w e conc l ude th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g w a s in e rr o r. F ederal R ule of E vidence 80 3(1) renders ad m i ssi ble as a pr es ent

- s e n s e i mpr e s s i o n “ [ a ] s t a t e me n t des cr i bi ng or expl ai ni ng an event or condi t i on m ade w hi l e t he dec l ar antw as per cei vi ng t he eve nt or condi t i on, or i m m edi at el yt her eaft er . ” A hear s ay s t at ement m aybe admi t t ed under t hi s exce pt i on i f i t expl ai ns or d e sc rib e s a n e v e n t p e rso n a llyw itn e ss e d b yth e d e c lar a n t, an d if th e d e c lar a tio n is m a d e e ss e n ti a llyc o n tem p o ra n e o u s to w i t nes s i ng t he event

. U ni t ed St at es v. M i t chel l , 145 F. 3d 572, 5 7 6 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; 5 J a c k B

. We i n s t e i n a n d Ma r g a r e t A. B e rg e r, W E IN S T E IN ’ S F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 8 0 3

. 0 3 [ 1 ] ( 2 d e d. 1997)

. I n t hi s case , t her e i s no di s put e t hatB r ow n w as p e rso n a llyp re se n t at th e n a rc o ti c s tr a n sa c tio n a n d th a t h is s t at ement purpor t s t o r ecountt he det ai l s of t hat t r ans act i on. T he o n lyq u e stio n b e f

o re u s is w h e th e r th e sta tem e n t is su f f icie n tly c o n te m p o ra n e o u s to q u a lif ya s a p re s e n t- s e n s e im p re s s io n . T he fundament al pr emi s e behi nd t hi s hear s ayexce pt i on “i s t hats ubs t ant i al cont empora nei t yo f event and s t at ement m i ni m i zes unr el i ab i l i t ydue t o [t he dec l ar ant ' s ] defe ct i ve r ecol l ect i on or cons ci ous fabr i cat i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M anfr e, 368 F. 3d 8 32, 840 ( 8t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B lak e y , 6 0 7 F .2 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 5 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 7 9 )); 5 W E IN S T E IN ’ S F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 803. 0 3 [ 1] ; s ee M i l l erv. K eat i ng, 754 F. 2d 5 0 7 , 5 1 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (la c k o f tim e to d e lib e ra tely m a n ip u late t r ut h of ac counti s key )

. “The i dea o f i m m edi acyl i es att he hear t o f t he exc ept i on, ” t hus , t he t i m e r equi r ement under l y i ng t he ex cepti o n “ is str i ct becau se i t i s t he fac t or t hatas s ur es t r u s t wo r t h i n e s s . ” 4 C h r i s t o p h e r B

. Mu e l l e r a n d L a i r d C. K ir k p a tr ic k , F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 8 :67 , 5 5 9 , 5 6 2 (3d ed

. 2 0 0 7 );H er e, t he pr earr anged c ont r ol l ed t r ans act i on concl uded at 3
a p p r o x i ma t e l y2 : 5 5 p m, a n d t h e s t a t e me n t wa s ma d e a t 3 : 4 5 p m. A p p . a t 5 0 7 A

. 8 s ee al s o C hamber s v. M i s s i s s i ppi , 410 U

. S. 284, 298- 99 ( 1973) ( hear s ayexce pt i ons ar e pr emi s ed on t he i dea t hatt he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he mak i ng of ce r t ai n ut t er ance s g u a ra n tee th e ir re liab ili ty ). P u t d if f e re n tly , the tem p o ra lit y r equi r ement m us t be r i gor ous beca us e t he pass age of t i m e – or t he l ack ther eof – i s t he effec t i ve proxy for t he re l i abi l i t yof t he s ubs t ance of t he dec l ar at i on; hence t he gr eat er the p as s age of t i m e, t he l es s t r ut hw or t hyt he s t at ement i s pr es um ed t o be, and t he more t he s cal es s houl d t i p t ow ar d i nadmi s s i bi l i t y . M anfr e, 368 F. 3d at840 ( “The oppor t uni t yfors t r at egi c modi fi cat i on u n d e rc u ts th e re lia b ility t h a t s p o n ta n e it y insu res.”). N e v e rth e les s, so m e b rie f tem p o ra l lap se is pe rm iss ib le so a s to acc om m odat e “the hum an r eal i t i es t hatt he condi t i on or event m ayhappen s o fas t that the w o r ds do not qui t e kee p pace . ” 4 F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 8: 67, at562; Fed. R

. E vi d. 803( 1) A dv. C o m m . N otes (1975 ) ( “[w ]i t h respect t o the t i m e el em ent, [80 3(1)] recogn i zes t hat i n m any , i f no t m ost , i nst ances p reci se c o n tem p o ra n e ityis n o t p o ss ib le a n d h e n c e a slig h t lap se is a llo w a b le ” ). W h ile it is tru e , as th e G o v e rn m e n t n o tes , tha t co u rts h a v e n o t a d o p t e d a n y b r i g h t

- l i n e r u l e a s t o wh e n a l a p s e o f t i me becomes t oo l engt hyt o pr ecl ude R ul e 803(1) ’ s appl i cat i on, s ee B l akey , 607 F. 2d at785 ( no per se rule e x ist s), w e a re never t hel es s unaw ar e of a nyl egal aut hor i t yfort he pr opos i t i on t hat50 m i nut es aft er t he fa ct m ayappr opr i at el ybe cons i der ed 3T he pr eci s e t i m i ng of t he statem en t at i s s ue i n U ni t ed 4 St at es v. B l akey( i n w hi ch an e x tort i on vi ct i m des cr i bed an i ns t ance of def

endant s ’ t hr eat s ) w as uncl ear . 607 F. 2d 779, 785 ( 7t h C i r . 1979)

. T he ch r onol ogyt her e w as as fol l ow s : t he defe ndant s l eft t he vi ct i m ’ s s t or e at 6: 00pm aft er t hr eat eni ng hi m , and a phone cal l w as m ade at 6: 23pm

. I n t he i nt er i m , t he vi ct i m w as r ecor ded havi ng a l engt hy conver s at i on w i t h anot her i ndi vi dual , dur i ng w hi ch he made the s t at ement s ought t o be a d m itt e d . Id . at 7 8 5 -8 6

. T h e re , the c o u rt f o u n d th a t “a re lativ e ly l ar ge amount of conver s at i on” w as r ecor ded af t ert he s t at ement ati s s ue. Id. a t 786. T hus , t he Seventh C i r cui t concl uded t hat al t hough t he onl y out er t empora l demar cat i on avai l abl e w as 23 m i nut es , t he s t at ement ati s s ue w as neve rt hel es s l i kel ym ade w e ll w ith in th e 2 3 -m in u te s p a n . Id

. 9 “i m m edi at el yt her eaf

t er . ” O n t he contr ar y , gi ven t he cl ear lan g u a g e o f th e ru le a n d its u n d e rly in g ra tio n a le, c o u rts c o n s is te n tly r e q u ir e s u b s ta n tia l c o n te m p o ra n e ity. S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed S t at es v. Shoup, 476 F. 3d 38, 42 ( 1s t C i r . 2007) ( 911 p h o n e c a ll m a d e “ o n lyo n e o r tw o m in u tes

.. . im m e d iate ly fol l ow i ng” eve nt admi s s i bl e) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D anfor d, 435 F. 3d 682, 687 ( 7t h C i r . 20 0 6 ) (st at ement m ade “ l es s t han 60 second s” aft er w i t nessi ng robberyqu al ifi ed as present -s ense im p re ss io n ); U n ited S tate s v . Ja c k so n , 1 2 4 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 8 (4 th C i r . 19 9 7 ) ( s t at ement byw i t nes s t o pol i ce upon thei r ar r i val at s cene that d ef

endantw as t hr eat eni ng t o ki l l herfami l yw as admi s s i bl e as “des cr i pt i on of ongoi ng event s ”) ; B l akey , 607 F. 2d 779, 785- 86 ( not er r or t o admi t s t at ement m ade atm os t 23 m i nut es aft erevent ); cf

. M anfr e, 368 F. 3d at840 ( s t at ement 4
m ade a ft er“an i nt er veni n g w al k or dr i ve” f ol l ow i ng eventnot10 a d m iss ib le ; “ T h e p re se n t-se n se -im p re ss io n e x c e p tio n .. . is r i ght ful l yl i m i t ed t o s t at ement s made w hi l e a de cl ar antper cei ves a n e v e n t o r im m e d iate ly th e re a f ter , a n d w e d e c lin e to e x p a n d it t o covera dec l ar ant ' s r el at i vel yr ece nt m emori es . ”); H i l y erv. H ow atC oncr et e C o. , I nc. , 578 F. 2d 422, 426 n. 7 ( D

. C

. C i r. 1977) ( ex cl udi ng s t at ement m ade be t w een 15 a nd 45 m i nut es fol l ow i ng event )

. I ndeed, w e have pr evi ous l yexpr es s ed s kept i ci s m t hata s t at ement m ade s om e 40 m i nut es aft ert he fa ct coul d be pr oper l yadmi t t ed as a pr es ent

- s ens e i m pression. M i t chel l, 145 F. 3d at577 ( w her e r obber yoccurr ed betw een 9 :0 0 a m a n d 9 :1 5 a m a n d n o tes w e re f o u n d in g e taw a y c a r a m ile fr om t he cr i m e s cene atap p rox i m at el y10: 00am, i nt er veni ng lap se w a s “ p ro b a b lyto o lo n g f o r a p p lica b ili tyo f

th e p re se n ts ens e i m pr es s i on . . . w hi ch re qui r es t he s t at ement t o be made v ir tuallyco n tem p o ran eo u slyw ith the e v en t b eing p erc eive d ”); s ee a l s o M i l l e r , 7 5 4 F. 2 d a t 5 1 2 ( c o n c l u d i n g i t was “ n ot nece s s ari ly an abus e of di s cr et i on” t o admi t s t at ement m ade “s ever al m i nut es ” af

t ert he fa ctas exci t ed ut t er ance , but not i ng “cour t s have r ecogni zed thatt he l engt h of t i m e s epar at i ng t he eventfr om t he s t at ement [for admi s s i on as an exci t ed ut t er ance ] m a y b e c o n side ra b ly l o ngerth an fors t at ement s qual i fy i ng under t he pr es ents ens e i m pr es s i on exce pt i on of R ul e 803( 1) ”) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). H er e, w e need not deci de t he pr eci s e t empora l l i m i t s of appl i cat i on o f t he pr es ent

- s ens e i m pr es s i on exce pt i on, nor w het hera s t at ement m ade 50 mi nutes af ter t he fa ctcoul d ever be pr oper l yadmi t t ed under R ul e 803( 1)

. T hi s i s s o s i nce B row n’s s t at em ent i n thi s case i s probl em at i c no t on l ybecau se of t he l engt h y pas s age of t i m e, but al s o beca us e t he s t at ement w as onlym ad e a

fter h e h a d

b e e n q u e stio n e d

b y D E A a g e n ts11 a b o u t th e d e tails o f

th e tra n sa c tio n th e sta tem e n t p u rp o rts to d e sc rib e . T h is u n d isp u ted se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts a f

f irm a tiv e ly in d ica tes th a t B ro w n m a d e h is state m e n t a f ter h e w a s e x p re ss ly a sk e d to re f

lec t u p o n th e e v e n ts in q u e stio n , an d th e re b yf a tally dis qu al i fi es t he d ecl arat io n for adm i ssi on as a present -s ense i m pr es s ion. See, e. g. , 4 F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 8: 67, at564 (sta tem e n ts m a d e a f

ter “ sig n if

ica n t d e lays

– th o se m e a su re d in m i nu t es or hou rs , es

peci al l y i f t he sp ea ker has m ade other sta tem e n ts in th e in ter im – barr es or t t o [R ul e] 8 0 3 (1)” ) ( emphasi s added) ; U ni t ed St at es v. N ar ci s o, 446 F. Supp. 25 2, 287 -88 ( E

. D

. M i ch. 1977) ( not e w r i t t en t w o hour s aft erevent and i n r es pons e t o ques t i ons not prese n t

- s ens e i m pr es s i on beca us e dec l ar ant“notonl y h ad t i m e t o r efl ecton w hathad t ranspi red [bu t ] w as i ntent i on al l yenco uraged t o refl ect on t ho se event s befor e ans w er i ng”)

. A dm i t t i ng B r ow n’ s s t at ement under t hes e ci r cumst ance s w oul d di r ect l yunder m i ne the funda m ent al pr emi s e behi nd t he pr es ent

- s ens e i m pr es s i on exce pt ion – t hat cont empora nei t yens ur es r el i abi l i t y beca us e t her e i s no t i m e for del i ber at e fabr i cat i on. E

. g. , 4 F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 8: 67, at564 ( “t i m e for r efl ect i on [] l es s en[s ] or r emoves[s ] t he as s ur ance of t r u s t wor t h i n e s s ”) ; 5 W E IN S T E IN ’ S F E D E R A L E VI DENCE § 803. 0 3 [1] ( s ubs t ant i al cont empora nei t yr equi r ed as t o al l ow “l i t t l e o r n o t i m e forcal cul at ed mi s s t at ement ”)

. I n s hor t , t he w e ig h t o f

th e a u th o rities m a k e s p lain th a t B ro w n ’s s tate m e n t – m ade 50 mi nut es aft erper cei vi ng t he t r ans act i on, aft erhe w as s ear ched a nd dr i ven t o D E A offi ces , and af t erhe w as debr i efe d b ylaw e n f

o r c e m e n t – w a s n o t p ro p e rlya d m itt e d a s a p re se n ts e n s e im p re s s io n . N or does Speci al A gentM i l l er ’ s t es t i m onycor r o bor at i ng t he s ubs tanc e of Brow n’ s des cr i pt i on of t he t r ans act i onF u r t h e r mo r e , a l t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r yt o o u r d e c i s i o n , we 5 obs er ve t hatt he admi s s i on of B r ow n’ s s t at ement m ayal s o have been i m pr operunderFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 613( b) , as w as a rg u e d b yD e f

e n d a n t b e lo w . F e d . R . E v id . 6 1 3 (b ) (“ E x trin sic evi dence of a pr i or i ncons i s t ents t at ement by a w i t nes s i s not a d m is sib le u n les s th e w itn e ss is a f f o rd e d a n o p p o rtu n ityto e x p l a i n o r d e n y t h e s a me a n d t h e o p p o s i t e p a r t y i s a ffor ded an oppor t uni t y t o i nt er r ogat e t he w i t nes s t her eon, ort he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce ot her w i s e r equi r e. ”)

. U n d er t he ci r cumst ance s , t he pr os ecut i on w as ent i t l ed t o ques t i on B r ow n abouthi s pr i or w r i t t en s t at ement dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, s ee Fed. R

. E vi d. 613( a) ( m ayi nqui r e aboutpr i or s t atement fori m peac hm ent purpos es ) , but t he rul e i s expl i ci t t hati n or dert o “pr ove up” the cont entof t he i ncons i s t ents t at ement , B r ow n m us t be conf r ont ed w ith it

. E

. g . , 4 Jac k B

. W eins tein a n d M a rga ret A

. B erg er, 12 o therw ise ren d er the stat em en t adm issi b le u n d er R u le 80 3 (1). W e ha v e i n d icated that co u rt s m ay , in certai n ca ses , re q u ire subst anti at i on or ot her i nd i ci a of trust w ort hiness i n addi t i on to c o n tem p o ra n e ityb e f

o re a d m itt in g th e d e c lar a tio n a s a p re se n tsense i m press i o n . S e e In r e Japan ese E l ec. P rods. A nti t rust L i t i g. , 72 3 F

. 2d 23 8, 30 3 (3d C i r. 19 83 ), rev’ d on o t her groun ds, 475 U

. S. 574 ( 1986) ( decl i ni ng t o admit s t at ement s “s ol el yon t he b asi s of co ntem po ranei t y ” beca us e t here w as ot herw i se “reas on t o be s kept i cal ” of t hei r s ubs t ance )

. H ow ever , w e a re awa r e o f

n o a u t h o r i t yt h a t a s t a t e me n t whi c h d o e s not i ndepende nt l ys at i s fya hea r s ayexce pt i on’ s pr er equi s i t es m ay n e v e rth e les s b e a d m itt e d b a se d so lely u p o n c o rro b o ra tio n o f its cont ent s . Such a pro p o si t i on w oul d obvi ous l yr enderm uch of t he actual t ext of t he h ears ayrul es com plet el ysuperfl uo us. 5W E IN S T E IN ’ S F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 613. 05[1] ( 2d ed. 1997) (e x trin sic ev id e n c e o f

p rio r sta tem e n t sh o u ld b e e x c lu d e d if R u le 6 1 3 (b) req u ir em en ts are n o t sat isfied); U n it ed S tat es v . L iefe r, 7 7 8 F .2 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 5 0 ( 7 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (tria l co u rt c o rre c tly s us t ai ned obj ect i on t o admi s s i on of pr i or s t at ement w hen g o v e rn m e n t did n o t con fro n t w itn ess w ith it ). H o w ev er, he re t he G over nm ent di d not as k B r ow n abouthi s s t at ement w hi l e he w as on t he s t and, d id notr eca l l hi m aft ert he s t at ement w as i n t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h t h e r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s ( n o r w a s a n y at t em ptto do s o evi dent on t he r ecor d) for i t s s ubs t ant i ve cont ent , and t he D ist ri ct C o u rtm ad e n o d e te rm ination that the s tat em en t’ s a d m is s io n w a s o th e rw is e w a rr a n te d in “ th e in te re s ts o f ju s tic e .” Fed. R

. E vi d. 613( b) ; 4 W E IN S T E IN ’ S F E D E RA L E VI DENCE § 613. 02[2] [a] ( need f o r f u ll oppor t uni t yt o expl ai n pr i or s t at ement i s par t i cul ar l ys t r ong w her e i n co n s i s t ents t at ement m aybe ad m i t t ed as s ubstan ti ve evi dence ) ; s ee a l s o i d. § 613. 05[4] [a] (“i nt er es t of j us t i ce” exce pt i on m aybe i nvoked if , in ter a lia , w i t nes s w as not pr es ent t o be r eca l l ed t o be q u esti o n ed ab o u t pri o r st atem en t)

. 13 O ur c oncl us i on t hatt he admi s s i on of B r ow n’ s pr i or s t at ement w as er r or w arran ts r ever s al unl es s t he err or w as h arm less. L ipp ay v . C h ri stos, 99 6 F

. 2 d 1 4 9 0 , 1 5 0 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). T o d e ter m in e h a rm les sn e ss , w e m u st d e c id e w h e th e r it w a s h ig h lyp ro b a b le th a t th e e v id e n tiary erro r su b sta n tially i nfl uenc ed t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct

. G ov’ t of V i r gi n I s l ands v. T ot o, 529 F. 2d 278, 283 ( 3d C i r . 1976 ). H ere , not w i t hs t andi ng t he G over nm ent ’ s concl us or yas s er t i ons t o t he con tr ar y , t he evi dence agai ns t D efe ndant , out s i de of B r ow n’ s s t at ement , w as n o t over w hel m i ng. W hi l e Speci al A gentM i l l ert es t i fi ed he

### A t th e o u tset, w e ac know l edge that o n appea l D efe ndant 6 fr ames t hi s cl ai m as one of pr os ecut or i al m i s co n d u ct bas ed on a n a lleg e d v io la ti o n o f h is p o st-a rre st, p o st-M ira n d a rig h t to s i l ence , and on l ye x p r es s l yobj ect s t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s r efe r ence s as t hey w er e m ade i n her cl os i ng ar gum ent s . H ow ever , even a 14 r e c o g n i z e d D e f

e n d a n t a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l b r i e f l y ( a n d p a r t i a l l y) d e p icte d o n th e v id e o tap e , the in f o r m a n t h im se lf

– th e o n ly per s on w ho w as actual l yphy s i call y pr es entfort he t r ans act i on – t es t i fi ed t o t he cont r ar y . G i ven t hi s confl i ct i ng t es t i m ony , t he im p o rt o f

B ro w n ’s p rio r st a te m e n t in w h ich h e c o n tra d icts h is trial t e stim o n y is se lf

-e v id e n t, a n d th e re su lti n g p re ju d ic e to D e f e n d a n t is p lain . U n d e r th e c ir c u m sta n c e s, w e c a n n o t h e lp but harbor a “gr ave doubt ” t hatt he err oneous admi s s i on of t he w ritte n s ta te m e n t h e r e s u b s ta n ti a ll y in f lu e n c e d th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. T ot o, 529 F. 2d at283 ( quot i ng K ot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U

. S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) ; s ee L i ppay , 996 F. 2d at 1500 ( new t r i al w ar r ant ed w h ere evi dence per t ai ni ng t o keyi s s ue i n cas e w as i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e must vaca t e t he c o n v ic tio n a n d re m a n d f o r a n e w tr ia l. B .D e f e n d a n t’s R e sp o n se s a n d S tate m e n ts 

### Next, we al so consider wh ether the Go vernm ent’ s re fe r e nc e s t o De fe ndant ’ s c us t odi a l r e s pons e s and s t at e m e nts vi ol at e d hi s c ons t i t

ut i ona l r i ght s . I n part i c ul ar , at i s s ue i s the prosec utor’s qu es ti on s and st at em ents pert ai ning to the fac t t hat a ft e r be i ng pl a c e d unde r arr e s t and whi l e i n DEA c us t ody , and af ter b ein g sh o w na v id eo tap e w h ichsup p o sed ly d ep ictedh im se ll ing drugs, Defendant widened h is eyes , asked fo r the video t o be r e pl aye d, and the n s i ghe d and hung hi s he a d. 6cur s or yr evi ew of t he t r i al r ecor d m akes clear t hatt he cons t i tuti o nal vi ol at i ons eff ect ed her e ext end w el l bey ond t he confi nes of D oy l e v. O h io, 426 U

. S. 610 ( 1976) , and t hatt he G over nm ent ’ s comm ent s on D efe ndant ’ s r eact i ons w er e not l i m i t ed t o i t s s um m at i on, but r at herw er e made 

### du ri ng it s c as ein -ch ief as w ell as inits o p en in g statem en ts.

15 

### As no ob ject ions were m ade bel ow , we m ay on ly re view for pl a in error . Fe d. R. Cr i m . Pr oc . 52( b)

. The pl a i n e rr or doc tr i ne a l l ows c ourt s t o c orr ect an othe rwi s e for fe i t e d e rr or whe r e the m i s t ake i s obvi ous and s o pr e judi c i a l l y i m

pa c t e d the out c om e at tr i a l s uc h that

i t ar i s e s t o afundam e nt a l m i s c arr i a ge of ju st ic e. Un it ed Stat es v. Warr en, 338 F.3d25 8, 26 0 ( 3dCir. 2003) ; s e e a l s o Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 725, 732 ( 19 93 )

. No twi ths t and i ng thi s de m anding s t and ar d o f r e vi e w, whe r e , a s he r e , the e rr or s ar e m ani fe s t i n l i ght of de cad e s of w el l- se tt le d F ifth Am endm ent anddu e proces s juris prud ence and w ere n ot harm le ss beyon d a re as on able do ub t, we re qu ir e no furthe r

br i e fin g t o c onc l ude that De fe ndant ’ s c onvi c t i on m us t be va c at e d on the s e gr ounds a s we l l

. Se e Uni t e d St at e s v. Shaw, 701 F. 2d 367, 382 n. 9 ( 5th Ci r . 1983 ) (co mm e nt on d ef en d an t’s in v o catio no f r i g h t to rem ainsilen t m ay arise to p lainerro r); U n ited S tates v . Wh iteh ead , 2 0 0 F .3 d 6 3 4 , 6 3 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (adm issio no f ev id en ce o f d e f

e n d an t’s p o st-arrest, p re-M i r an d a silen ce “p lain ly in f rin g edup o n[ d ef

en d an t’s] privil ege a gainst

se lf-i ncri m inatio n ” andwarr ants re vers alas lo n g as erro r af

f ectedo u tco m e o f

p ro ceed in g ). We begin with a brie f r ec it at ion of the ci rc u m st ance s surro un d in g D ef

en d an t’s p r os e c uti on. The na r c oti c s t r a ns a c ti onH ow ever , D efe ndantpr es ent ed undi s put ed evi dence att he 7 heari ng t hat t his capi as had i n fact b ee n w i t hdr aw n as of D ece m ber 1, 2004, t he day pr i or t o G r een’ s ar r es t

. B u t t h ere w as no i ndi cat i on as t o w hen t hi s i nfor m at i on w as updat ed i n t he p o lic e d a ta b a s e . 16 

### for whi c h Gr e e n wa s c onvi c t e d oc c urr e d i n May 2002, and the Gove rnm e nt

obt a i ne d a f

ed e r a l i ndi c tm e nt

a ga i ns t De fe ndant fo r this a ct

in Septem

ber 200 4. OnDecem

ber 2, 200 4, Gree n w as arrestedb y

D E A S p ecial A g en ts M iller an dH u g h es. Wh ile i n c us t ody , De fe ndant a dm i tt e d that he ha d s ol d nar c ot i c s i n the i ns t anc e de pi c t e d o n the vi de ot a pe that he wa s s ho wn (purpo rt edly of the May

20 02 tr ansa ct ion). Pri or to tria l, Gree n s ought t o s uppr e s s hi s c onfe s s i on, claim ing that he di d not wa i ve hi s Mi r andar i ght s , but the Di s tr i c t

Cou rt de ni e d the m ot i on. At the s up pres si onhear ing, Sp ec ia l Agent Hu gh es t e s t i fi e d that

pr i or t o he a di ng out

t o the fi e l d t o arr e s t

Gr e e n on De c e m be r 2, 2004, he di d an out s t andi ng warran ts c he c k and fo un d that Gre en had an acti ve ca p ias f o r anun relatedstate c ourt m att e r . Ba s e d on thi s , whe n Hughe s arr e s t e d Gr e e n, he

7 

### p urp o sef u lly d idn o t id en tif

y h im s e l f as D E A , b u t m erely said that he wa s “ pol i c e ” and that Gr e e n wa s be i ng arr e s t e d for the st at e c api as . On ly afte r Gree n was tr ansporte d t o D EA of fice s di d Hughe s i nform

hi m of the tr ue nat ur e of the arr e s t

– that he ha d b e e n i n d i c t e d b y a f e d e r a l g r an d j ury f

o r d i s tr i b u t i o n of nar c ot i c s . The n, a ft e r

hol di ng Gr e e n i n ac e l l for abr i e f pe r i od, Hughe s t ook hi m

i nt o an i nt e rr ogat io n ro om , s howe d hi m the video, advise d Gre en of his Mirand a warnings, and then b eganT h e re is a lso a su g g e stio n in th e re c o rd th a t 

### thi s wa s done 8 

### be c aus e DEA a ge nt s ha d Gr e e n i n c us t ody on pr e vio us o c c a s i o n s b u t w e r e un ab l e t o e x tr a c t an y s t at e me n t s f

r o m h i m. 17 

### e xpr e s s que s t i oni ng. Gr e e n s ubs e que nt l y wa i ve d hi s r i ght s and co n f essed , alth o u g hn o w aiv er f o rm w as sig n ed

. Re m arkabl y , the fa i l ur e t o a dm i ni s t e r Mi r andawarni ngs pr i or t o s howi ng Gr e e n the vi de o wa s the r e s ul t of ac ons c i ous de c i s i on on the part

of the DEA. As Hughe s e xpl a i ne d: [I ] t w as m y i nt ent i on t o get M r . G r een ba ck t o our o f f ice , sh o w h im th e v id e o , an d a tt e m p t to g a in hi s co o p era t i on s o I coul d i dent i fyt he s our ce of s u p p ly ... 

### A n d , qu i t e f

r an k l y , h a dI s a i d , you kn ow , I was DEA Sp ec ia l Agent Hu gh es and h ad h im o u t o nth e scen e, it’s qu ite p o ssib le h e w o u ld have s a i d, I want

to sp eak t o my

l awye r r i ght aw ay . Ap p. at 59 A-60 A (tr ansc ript from supp ress io n h eari ng ). I nde e d, Hughe s c andi dl y

s t at e d that the wi thhol di ng of Mi r anda w as h is p lanall alo n g . Ap p . at 6 3 A -6 4 A (“Q : I s t her e a r eas on w h yw h e n y o u w e re a rre stin g [ G re e n ] th a t d a y.. . o n th e stre e t, w h e n y o u a p p ro a c h e d h im , w h y yo u d id n ’t a d v ise h im o f h is M i r a n d a r i g h t s a t t h a t t i me ? [ Hu g h e s ] : I c h o s e n o t t o . . . Q: Purp os el y ? A : Pur pos el y. . . T he [] pl an w as not t o Mi rand ize A rt eg a G re e n u n ti l he s aw the v ideo

. ”); i d

. at 60 A (“ 

### S o , yes, [not gi vi ng the warni ngs unt i l a ft e r the vi de o] wa s as tr at e gy and a plan that

I i nten d ed o n u ti li zi ng up onm aking that ar re st .” ). 8I n par t i cul ar, as t he pr os ecut or ar gued t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t at s uppr es s i on: I t hi nk t he most t el l i ng evi dence [t hatD efe ndant vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s M i r anda r i ght s ]

. . . i s t he t es t i m onyof A gentH ughes aboutpr i or cont actby one of t he off

i cer s par t i ci pat i ng i n t hi s cas e, i n t he M i r andi zi ng of t he def endantas w ell as t he off i cer, T ask F orce O ffi cer L a w rence C oll i ns, w ho had pr i or l aw enfor ceme n t co nt actw i t h t he d e f e n d a n t in a d ru g in v e s tig a tio n , Mi r andiz ed , or w as pres ent w hen t he defe nd ant w as Mi r andiz ed

. A nd t he defenda nt , bei ng s avvy and know i ng t he cri m i nal j ust i ce sy st em , i nv ok ed those ri gh t s. A p p . a t 8 7 A

. 18 

### D ef en d an t d idn o t t e s t i f

y inh is o w nd ef

en se at trial. How e v e r , dur i n g th e G o v e rn m e n t ’ s c a s e - i n - c h i e f , th e A U SA was per m itte d to eli ci t from

Hu gh es te st im on y as to Green’s re ac ti on s andst at em ents afte r vie wing the video. In part ic ular , i n r e s pons e t o the AUSA’ s que s t i ons , Hughe s s t at e d: [W ]he n the de fe ndant

fi r s t vi e we d the vi de o . . . he looke d at i t , and the de fe ndant ’ s e ye s ki nd of wi de ne d. He l ooke d s urp rised. And the ne xt s t at e m e nt wa s , c an he s e e it

a ga i n. And I rew o u n di t

. Hi t

pl ay a ga i n. Al l owe d the de fe ndant t o s e e th e v id eo a ga i n . . . At the c onc l us i on of the vi de o, the de fe ndant ki ndof l owe r e d hi s he a d, t ook l i ke as i gh, ade e p br e ath.19 

### Ap p. at 27 2A . During h er

clo sing , the AU SA ar gu ed that G reen ’s reactio n s clearly

d em o n stratedh is adm issio no f g u ilt: [Y]ou he ar d Age nt

Hughe s ’ t est i m ony

whe n he s at the de fe ndant

down and s a i d I w ant

t o s how y ou s o m e th i n g . Wh e n h e p l aye d th e v i d e o . . . of the a c t ua l dr ug tr ans act i on, what

di d the d ef en d an t d o ? Well, A g en t H u g h es to ld yo u . H is e ye s ope ne d wi de a s i f he we r e s ur pr i s e d. Mi ght y o uh av e b e e ns ur

p r i s e di f yo uw e r e be i ng c onfr ont e d wi th crack coc a i ne you s ol d two and aha lf ye ar s a go? .

. . And what wa s the defend ant’ s r ea ct ion after his e yes op ened wide? He as ked to s ee the video agai n. No w, if youar e not the pe r s on who wa s c aught on the vi de o, why woul d you want t o s e e the vi de o a ga i n? Why wo uld you look surpri se d? A n dm ore im p o rtan tly , lad ies an dg en tlemen , w h y w o u ld you do what A g en t

Hughe s t ol d you the defend ant did afte r he saw it t he se condti m e? Why wo uld yousi t andlower you r hea d ( i ndi c at i ng) ? Why , i f you di dn’ t do i t ? Who cares?

... A skyo urself

, lad ies an dg en tlem en , if yo uare in a D E A o f

f ice an d yo u are b ein g to ld ab o u tall the s e t e rr i bl e thi ngs that c oul d ha ppe n t o you and you ar e be i ng c onfr ont e d by afe de r a l pr os e c ut or and you have s e e n thi s vi deo tap e of s om e body w h o lo o k s j u st lik e yo usellin g crackco cain e toA s a th re sh o ld m a tter, w e n o te th a t b e c a u se D e f e n d a n t d id 9 not t es t i fy , t her e i s no i s s ue befor e us per t ai ni ng t o w het herany such ev i den ce m ay be properl y used for i m peach m ent purposes. See J enki ns v. A nder s on, 447 U

. S. 231, 240 ( 1980) ( pr os ecut i on m ayus e def

endant ’ s pr e- ar r es t , pr e-c u st odi al s i l ence for i m peac hm entpu rpo s es ) ; but cf. D oy l e v. O hi o, 426 U

. S. 610, 611 ( 1976) ( i m peac hm entus e of de fenda nt ’ s pos t

- M i r anda s ile n c e v io la te s d u e p ro c e s s ). 20 

### ano the r i nd i vi du a l , but

youar e i nn oc e nt , wh at m i ght you s ay ? W oul d you s hake your he a d and lo o ksurp rised... O r w o u ldyo usay , I d idn ’t d o it? App. at 555A- 556A, 557A. No obje c t i on wa s l odge d a s t o any o f th ese ref eren ces. N o tw ith s t an d in g th e f

ailure to o b

j ect, th e erro r in a l l owi ng the s e que s t i ons and c omm e nt s pl a i nl y r i s e s t o that of a c on st it utional m agnitude. Her e, the i ss ues b ef ore us are wh ether the prosecut ion may u se in it s c as e- in-c hief as s ubs t ant i ve e vi de nc e ( 1) Gr e e n’ s r e s pons e s and r e a c t i ons upon 9 

### s e e i ng the vi de o be for e be i ng a dvi s e d of hi s Mi r andar i ght s and (2 ) th e state men ts h e m ad e sub sequ en t to b ein g adv isedo f h is Mirand a r ight s. U n der the ci rc um st ance s pre se nt in this ca se , w e co n clu d e th at it m ay

n o t. 1. Respon se s a fter

viewing v ideo It is ho rnbo ok law that the p olic e must adv is e a suspec t of hi s Fi fth Am e ndm e nt

r i ght t o r e m a i n s i l e nt

be for e i ni t i at i ng ac us t odi a l i nte rr ogat i on. Mi r andav. Ar i z ona , 384 U. S. 436 (196 6). Mir anda’s protec ti on s “ com e i nto p lay w h en ev er aA l t hough t he Supr eme Court has r ecogni zed a few l i m i t ed 10
ex ce p ti o n s to this g en era l rule of inad m issi b il ity , see N ew Y o rk v . Q u a rle s, 4 6 7 U .S . 6 4 9 , 6 5 5 -5 6 (1 9 8 4 ) (p u b lic s a f e ty exce pt i on) ; H ar r i s v. N ew Y or k, 401 U

. S. 22 2 , 226 ( 1971) (i m p ea ch m en t exc ep ti o n w h e re d ef en d an t t esti fies), no n e a re im p lic a te d h e re . 21 

### pe r s on i n c us t ody

i s s ubje c t e d t o e i the r

e xpr e s s que s t i oni ng or i t s func t i ona le qui va l e nt , ” that i s , “ the t e rm

‘ i nt e rr ogat i on’ un d er M iran d a ref

ers n o t o n ly to exp ress qu estio n in g , b u t also t o any wor ds or

a c t i ons on the part o f th e pol i c e . . . that the po li ce shou ld kn ow ar e re as on ably li kely to el ic it

an i nc r i m i nat i ng r e s pons e . ” Rhode I s l and v. I nni s , 446 U. S. 291, 300- 01 ( 1980)

. Any

s t at e m e nt s or

t e s t i m oni a l a c t s m a de pr i or to the a dm inis tr at ion andvo luntar y waiver of Mirand a r ights are
“ i rr e butt abl y

pr e s um e d i nvol unt ary” and m ay not be us e d i n the prosec ution’s c as e- in-c hief. Unite d S tate s v. Pac heco-L o pez, 531 F. 3d 420, 424 ( 6th Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Or e gon v. El s t a d, 470 U. S. 298, 307 ( 1985) ) ; Mi s s our i v. Se i be rt , 542 U. S. 600, 6 0 8 (2 0 0 4 ) (p lurality

o p in io n ). A nact is “testim o n ial” if it 10 

### “ex p lic i t ly

o r im p licitly , relate a f

actu al assertio no r d isclo se info rm at ion.” Doe v. Un it ed Stat es , 48 7 U.S. 20 1, 21 0 (19 88 ); Pen n s y l vani a v. M uni z, 496 U

. S. 582, 589 ( 1990) 

### ; c f. Schm erber v . C al i for ni a, 384 U

. S. 757, 761 ( 1966) ( phy s i cal ev iden ce d o es n o t i m p li ca te F ift h A m en d m en t)

. 

### As even the Gov er

nm ent a ckno wl ed g ed du ri ng oral ar gu m ent, Gree n w as in cust ody fo r pu rposes of Mirand a when he was s ho wnthe videota pe. An d w e c an hardly

im agine a m or e p ro t oty

pi c a l e xam

pl e of the “ func t i ona l e qui va l e nt ” of22 

### i nt e rr ogat i on than whe n as us pe c t i s s hown avi de o i n whi c h he is d ep ictedas en g ag in g in a crim in al act. In th is case, n o t o n ly was H u g h es ’s ac ti onon e which he shou ld have kn ow n w as “reaso n ab ly

lik ely to elicit anin crim in atin g resp o n s e , ” In n is, 44 6 U.S. at 30 1; indeed, as was op enly adm itte d , H u gh es s howe d th e v i de o wi t

h t hee x press des i

gn th at G reenw o u ld resp o n d b y in crim in atin g h im self , Ap p . at 5 9 A -6 0 A . T hu s, it is c l e ar that Gr e e n’ s Mi r andar i ght s we r e i m pl i c at e d at

the poi nt h e w as sh o w nth e v id eo . F urth erm o r e , inth e p articu lar co n tex t o f th is trial, Hughe s ’ t e s t i m ony

about Gr e e n’ s non- ve r

ba l r e a c t i ons upon v iew in g th e v id e o

– th at G reenw id en edh is eyes, lo w eredh is h ead an d sig h ed–w as p lain ly elicitedb y

th e G o v ern m en t w ith the i ntent of a rg uing to the jury that thes e a ct s dem on strate d Gr e e n’ s a c knowl e dgm e nt of gui l t

. And as th e p ort i ons of the trial tran scrip t ex cerp tedab o v e m ak e cle ar , th e A U S A d id exac tl y this in her c losi ng . Un der these ci rc um st ance s, we need not de c i de whe the r a de fe ndant ’ s a c t s i n l owe r i ng hi s he a d and s i ghi ng or ope ni ng hi s e ye s wi de ar e ne c e s s ar i l y t e s t i m oni a l for pu rposes of

the Fifth Am endm ent i n every inst ance . S ee U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 944 F. 2d 1563, 1569 ( 11t h C i r . 1991) ( not i ng i n di ct a t he “di ffi cul t l evel s of gr adat i on” betw een non- verbal comm uni cat i ve ac t s and “pur el yphy s i cal ” non- as s er t i ve re a c tio n s ). I 

### t is enou gh that the Go vernm ent c le ar ly pres ente d the m a s s u c ht o th e j ury i nth i s c a s e . S e e U n i t e dS t at e s v. Elkins, 7 74 F.2d 53 0, 53 8 (1st Cir. 19 85 ) ( ac kn ow le dg ing that whi l e de fe ndant

di d not s e e m s ur pr i s e d by arr e s t or que s t i oni ng “m ay ar gu ably [b e] evidence of [] dem ea n o r, ” where i t was ne ve rthe l e s s c l e ar

that the de s c r i pt i on o f d e fe ndant ’ s r e a c t i on wa s un am

b i g u o u s l y u s e d at tr i a l i n a m an n e r th at “ i n v i t e d theW e n o te th a t th e in a d m iss ib ili tyo f su c h sta te m e n ts is 11 gener al l yan i s s ue t hati s r eadi ly co n cede d byt he pr os ecut i on. S e e , e .g ., 

### Un it ed Stat es v. Naranj o, 42 6 F .3d 2 21 , 226 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (g o v ern m en t ag reedd ef en d an t’s p re-M iran d a statem en ts could n ot be used at tria l s o o nly is sue before court was adm i s s i b ility

o f p o st-M iran d a statem en ts); U ni t ed St at es v. Y amb a , 4 0 7 F. Su p p . 2 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 9 n . 1 ( W

. D. Pa

. 2 0 06) ( “The U n it ed S tat es c o n ce d ed that the st atem en t Y am b a m ad e b ef o re he w as M i r andi

z ed m u s t b e s u p p re s s e d .” ).

23 

### jury t o i nfe r gui l ty kn o w ledge fr om

the [] fa i l ur e t o r e s pond, a dm i s s i on wa s e rr or) ; see a l s o R i ver a, 944 F. 2d at1568- 69 ( di ct a t hatgover nm ent ’ s comm ent aboutdefe ndant ’ s “dea dpan” expr es s i on dur i ng cus t odi al i nte r r ogat i on upon obs er vi ng d isc o v e ryo f

c o n tra b a n d in h e r lu g g a g e m a yb e “ c o n stitu tio n a lly p r o b l e m a t i c , ” b u t d e c l i n i n g t o d e c i d e i s s u e b e c a u s e e r r o r , i f a n y, w as h arm less). 

### He r e , be c aus e the DEA a ge nt s didnot a dm i ni s t e r

the r e qui s i t e warni ngs pr i or to s howi ng Gr e e n the video, the a dm is si onat

tria l of Gree n’s s tate m ents – b oth v er bal and non- ve r

ba l – m a de a ft e r

s e e i ng the vi de o wa s e rr or . El s t a d, 470 U. S. at

317. 11 

### We em p h asize th at th e m o st critical asp ect o f th is case is th at G reen ’s reactio n s h ere cam e af ter h e w as un qu estio n ab ly in c us t ody and w as s ubje c t e d t o the func t i ona l e qui va l e nt of i nt e rr ogat i on. I n the c ont e xt of our Fi fth Am e ndm e nt and due proces s juris prud ence , the te rm s pre - andpo st -Mir anda are merely shorthand f

or t he cruci al i nqui r yof w het herone’s M ira n d a rig h ts h a v e b e e n im p lica ted . In d e e d , tha t p o lice f a il t o a d m in iste r w a rn in g s w hen th e yw e re c o n stitu tio n a llyre q u ire d to24 do s o obvi ous l ydoes not m ean thats ubs equen t s t at ement s ( or s i l e n c e ) a r e “ p r e - M i r a n d a ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

t r i a l a d m i s s i b i l i t y. O t her w i s e, pol i ce c oul d r enderal l s t at ement s ( and s i l ence ) a d m iss ib le s im p lyb yw ith h o ld in g th e re q u isite w a rn in g s u n til a f te r t h e f a c t a n d th u s c ir c u m v e n t M ir a n d a e n tir e ly. 

### See Unite d St at e s v. Moor e , 104 F. 3d 377, 386, 385 ( D. C. Ci r . 1997) ( no c a s e c oul d l ogi c a l l y

“ s t and[] for

the pr opos i t ion .

. . that

the defend ant’ s s il ence can b e use d against him so long as he has no t r ec ei ved h is Mirand a w ar ning s” ; con clud ing to the c on tr ar y “w o u ld cr eate an ince ntive for ar re st ing o ff

ic er s t o d el ay in te rr o gati onin order t o cre at e an inter vening ‘s il ence ’ that c oul d the n be us e d a ga i ns t the de fe ndant ” )

. As s uc h, a l though De fe ndant ’ s s t at e m e nt s i n thi s c a s e we r e t e c hni c a l l y and chrono logica ll y

pre- Mirand a – that

is , occu rr in g b efore De fe ndant

wa s a dvi s e d of hi s Mi r andar i ght s – th ey w er e not tr ul y of the pr e - Mi r andavar i e ty f o r pur pos e s of the r e l e vant consti tuti on alanal y si s s ince they in fact occurred after Mi r anda ’ s s a fe guar ds we r e tr i gge r e d and af ter the warni ngs s houl d have be e n gi ve n . T h ere for e , nothi ng m or e than a straig h tf o rw ardap p licatio no f

M iran d a i s requ iredinth e case b ef o re u s; b ecau se D ef

en d an t’s reactio n s w ere imp erm issib ly co m p e l l e d , th eir adm issio nat trial v io lateddu e p ro cess. M iran d a, 384 U

. S. at444 

### ( “ th e prosecuti on m ayno t use s t at ement s , w het her excul pat or y or i ncul pat or y , s t emm i ng fr om cus t odi al i nt er r ogat i on of t he def endantunl es s i t demonst r at es t he us e of pr ocedur al s afe guar ds eff ect i ve t o s ecur e t he pr i vi l ege a g a in s t s e lf

-i n c ri m in a tio n ” ). 

### M o reo v e r , w e o b serv e th at t he record bef ore us al so ampl ys uppor t s the concl us i on t hatt he pr os ecut or comm ent ed o n G re e n ’s sile n c e o r no n -re sp o n siv e n e ss th ro u g h re f e re n c e toT he i s s ue of w het hera def endant ’ s pr e- M i r anda s il ence 12
m ay b e u sed as su b stan ti v e e v iden ce o f g u il t in the p rose cu ti o n ’s cas e- i n- chi ef ha s di vi ded t he ci r cui ts. T he maj or i t yhol d t hat s uc h u s e i s notc o n s titu tio n a lly p e rm is s ib le . S e e , e .g ., 

### Un it ed St at e s v. El ki ns , 774 F. 2d 530, 538 ( 1s t Ci r . 1985) ( t es t i m ony r egar di ng defe ndant ’ s appar ent l ack of s urpr i s e w hen a r r es t ed and gi ven M i ran d a w ar ni ngs vi ol at ed due pr oces s ) ; C om bs v. C o y le, 2 0 5 F

. 3 d 2 6 9 , 2 8 3 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ u se o f a d ef en d an t’ s 25 h is n o n -v e rb a l re a c tio n s . 

### App. at 557A ( Gove rnm e nt ’ s c l os i ng: “[I]f youar e i n a DE A o ff ic e . .. and youar e bei ng conf ronted by afe de r a l pr os e c ut or

and you have s e e n this vi de ot a pe of s om e body

who l ooks jus t

l i ke you s e l l i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne . . . but youar e i nn oc e nt , wh at

m i gh t yous ay ? W

oul d y ou s hak

ey our h ea d a n d lo o k su rp rised

... O r w o u ld yo u sa

y, I did n ’t d o it? ”) (em p h as i s a d d ed ). It m ay b e th at th is u se w as also co n st itu ti o n al ly

qu es ti o n ab le inli g h t o f

th e w el l- se tt le dru le th at o n ce M iran d a rig h ts h av e attach ed , th e p ro secu to r m ay n o t ask the jury t o dr aw the i nfe r e nc e that the de fe ndant ’ s s ubs e qu ent silen c e i s i nc ons i s t e nt

wi th hi s i nnoc e nc e . E. g. , Gr i ffi n v. Cali f o rnia , 380 U.S. 60 9, 61 4-15 (196 5); c f. Flet cher v. We ir , 4 5 5 U .S . 6 0 3 , 6 0 6 -0 7 (1 9 8 2 ) (n o t f un d am en tally

un f air to u se defend ant’ s s il en ce for imp eachment pu rposes wh er e gove rnm e nt

di d not e xpr e s s l y i nduc e hi s s i l e nc e by

a dvi s i ng of Mi r andar i ght s ). H o w e ve r , be c aus e we pr e m i s e our de c i s i on here onthe bas is that

Gree n’s no n-verbal ac ts were te st im on ia l and c omm

uni c at i ve i n nat

ur e , we do not r e a c h the di s t i nc t , but som ewhat tho rny

qu es ti o n of

wh ether the prosecut or’s r e fe r e nc e s t o De fe ndan t’ s t e c hni c a l l y pr e - Mi r andanonre spon si veness m ay

se pa ra te ly

ar is e t o con st it

utional e rr or. 12pr earr es t s i l ence as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of gui l t vi o l at es t he Fi ft h A m endm en t”); U ni t ed St at es ex r el

. Savor yv. L ane, 832 F. 2d 1011, 1018 ( 7t h C i r . 1987) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. V el ar de- G om ez, 269 F. 3d 1023, 1033 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc ) ( di s t r i ctcour t er r ed i n al low ing gover nm entt o comm enton d ef en dant ’ s pos t

- ar r es t , pr e- M i r anda s i l ence ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B ur s on, 952 F. 2d 1196, 1200- 01 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( adm is s i on in to e v id e n c e o f d e f

e n d a n t’s p re -a rre st, p re -M ira n d a re f u sa l to ans w erquest i ons cons t i t ut ed pl ai n er r or ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 104 F. 3d 377, 3 8 5 (D

. C

. C i r . 1997) ( “cus t odyand not i nt er r ogat i on i s t he t r i gger i ng m echa ni s m for t he r i ght of pr et r i al sile n c e u n d e r M ira n d a ” ; g o v e rn m e n t’s c o m m e n t o n p o st-a rre st, pr e- M i r anda s i l ence w as er r or ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. C ar o, 637 F. 2d 869, 876 (2d C ir

. 1981) ( not i ng i n di ct a “w e have found no dec i s i on per m i t t i ng t he us e of s i l ence , even the s i l ence o f a su sp e c t w h o h a s b e e n g iv e n n o M ira n d a w a r n in g s a n d is ent i t l ed t o none, as par t of t he G overnm ent ' s di r ectcas e”)

. B ut cf. U ni t ed St at es v. L ove, 767 F. 2d 1052, 1063 ( 4t h C i r . 1985) (t esti m o n yo f d ef

en d an ts’ pre-arr est , pr e- M i r anda si l ence pr oper l y ad m i t t ed; no fundament al unfai r nes s i n admi t t i ng evi dence of non- M i r anda- i nduced s i l ence ) ; U nit ed St at es v. Fr azi er , 408 F. 3d 1 1 02, 1111 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) ( comm enton defe ndant ’ s pos t

- ar r es t , pr e- M i r anda s i l ence per m i s s i bl e as s ubs t an t i v e g o v e rnm entevi dence w her e def endantw as underno offi ci al compul s i on t o s peak) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 944 F. 2d 1563, 1568 ( 11t h C i r . 1 9 9 1) ( di ct a t hatgover nm entm ay r efe r ence defe ndant ’ s pos t

- ar r es t , pr e- M i r anda si l ence w i t hout r ai s i ng cons t i t ut i onal ques t i ons )

. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. P a n d o F ra n c o , 5 0 3 F .3 d 3 8 9 , 3 9 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g c irc u it 26s p lit b u t d e c lin in g to re s o lv e q u e s tio n ). 27 2 . Subse quentconfe s s i on G i ven our concl us i ons t hatt he s how i ng of t he vi deo w as th e f u n c tio n a l eq u iv a len t o f

in ter ro g a tio n , an d th a t th e f a ilu re to advi s e G r een of

hi s r i g h ts vi ol at ed M i r anda, w e ar e t hus l eft w i t h t he on- t he- r ecor d s t at ement byD E A Speci al A gentH ughes t hatt h is om i s s i on w as t he r es ul t of a de l i ber at e and c al cul at ed p lan

. A lth o u g h D e f

e n d a n t f a ils to ra ise th is iss u e , w e a re u n a b le t o i gnor e t he i m pl i cat i on t hatt hi s s t ar k admi s s i on on t he par t of a f e d e r a l l a w e n f

o r c e me n t o f

f i c i a l h a s o n t h e a d mi s s i b i l i t y of D ef en d an t’ s su b seq u en t, p o st- M ir an d a st a te m e n ts . S e e M is s o u ri v. S ei ber t , 542 U

. S. 600 ( 2004)

. T hi s i s pr eci s el yt he t ype of e r r o r c o n t e mp l a t e d b y t h e “ p l a i n e r r o r ” s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. W ar r en, 338 F. 3d at260 ( unpr es er ved err or w hi ch aff ect ed t he o u tcom e of tr ial p roc ee d ing s m ay b e c o rrected o n ap p ea l w h ere i t “se ri o u s l yaff

ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 388 F. 3d 1079, 1091 ( 7t h C i r . 2004) ( r emandi ng t o di s t r i ct cour t for Sei ber t det er m i nat i on but s t at i ng i f Sei ber t r ender ed conf es s i on i nadmi s s i bl e, ear l i eradmi s s i on of conf es s i on w as pla i n er r or a f f e c tin g d e f

e n d a n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ). I n Se i b e r t , t h e Su p r e me Cou r t c o n s i d e r e d t he co n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e “ q u esti o n first , M irandiz e lat er” in te rr o g a tio n s tr a te g y . T h e re , 

### the Cou rt held that wh er e polic e m ake a consci ou s deci si on to withho ld Mirand a u n ti l after i nt e rr ogat i ng and obt a i ni ng ac onfe s s i on, a l l sub seque nt i nc r i m in atin g s t at e m e nt s , e ve n thos e m a de a ft e r the m i dinte rr og at ion p rovisi on of Mirand a war

ning s are re nd er ed28 

### i na dm i s s i bl e . Se i be rt , 542 U. S. at 616- 17; c f. Or e gon v. El s t a d, 470 U. S. 298, 311- 14 ( 1985) ( a l though de fe ndant m a de uns ol i c i t e d

c o n fe s s i on at

s c e ne , pol i c e ’ s l at e r

Mi r andawarni ngs gi ve n whe n de fe ndant

wa s form a l l y

i n c us t ody

m a de s ub s e qu e n t , r e p e at e dc o n f e s s i o na dm i s s i b l e un d e r

o b j e c t i ve in qu iry o f v o lun tarin ess). W e h av e p r e v i o u s l y di s cus s ed t he Sei ber t deci s i on at leng th in U n it ed S tat es v . N ara n jo, 42 6 F

. 3 d 2 2 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). I n N ar anj o, fede r al cus t om s agent s s us pect ed t hatt he def endant w a s in v o lv e d in n a rc o tics tra f f ick in g , a n d a f

e w d a y s in to th e ir i nves t i gat i on, a number of age nt s conver ged on t he s us pectas he w as l eavi ng hi s r es i dence

. I d. at 224. N ar anj o w as handcuf fed, but t he age nt s t ol d hi m t hatal t hough he w as not underar r es t and di d not have t o ans w er any ques t i ons , t heyw ant ed t o know i f he w oul d be w i l l i ng t o s peak w i t h t hem i n anyevent

. I d. at224- 25. D efe ndantagr eed t o t al k and i ncr i m i nat ed hi m s el f. I d. at255. A ft era br eak i n t he ques t i oni ng, how ever , not w i t hs t andi ng t he d e f e n d a n t’s d e sire to c o n tin u e sp e a k in g , the a g e n ts sto p p e d h im a n d a d v ise d h im o f

h is M ira n d a ri g h ts ; N a ra n jo su b se q u e n tly w ai ved h is r i ght s and off er ed addi t i onal det ai l s of hi s cr i m i nal in v o lv e m e n t. I d

. W e hel d i n N ar an

jo thatt he t hr es hol d i nqui r y , w hen c o n f ro n ted w ith a sta tem e n t ch a llen g e d o n “ q u e stio n f irst, M i rand ize l at er ” grounds , i s w het hert he t i m i ng of t he M i r anda w a rn in g w a s th e p ro d u c t o f a d e lib e ra te la w e n f o rc e m e n t tac tic t o w i t hhol d t he req u isi t e w ar ni ngs att he comm ence m entof ques t i oni ng. I d. at 2 3 1 -32 ( ci t i ng Sei ber t , 542 U

. S. at622A s w e n o ted i n N ara n jo, bec au se Ju sti ce K en n ed y ’s 13
c o n c u rre n c e is n a rro w e r th a n th e p lu r a li ty ’s o p in io n , h is r eas oni ng i s prop erl yvi ew ed as t he hol di ng of t he C our t

. 426 F. 3d at231 ( quot i ng M ar ks v. U ni t ed St at es , 430 U

. S. 188, 193 (1 9 7 7 ))

. 29 (K e n n e d y , J., c o n c u rrin g in ju d g m e n t)). W h e re M ira n d a is 13
cons ci ous l yw i t hhel d, “pos t w ar ni ng s t at ement s t hatar e r el at ed t o t he s ubs t ance of pr ew ar ni ng s tat em ent s m us t be exc l uded unl es s cur at i ve meas ur es ar e t aken befor e the pos t w ar ni ng s ta te m e n t is m a d e .” S e ib e rt , 5 4 2 U .S . a t 6 2 2 (K e n n e d y , J ., co n cu rri n g ). S u ch “c u rati v e m ea su res” m ay “inc lud e a n inq u iry i nt o w het her or not t he def endantw as i nfor m ed t hathi s / herpr i or u n w arn ed stat em en t can n o t be u sed as e v iden c e , alt h o u g h it ’s n o t n ec essa ryto inf

o rm the s u sp ec t of

that in ev ery instan ce .” Na r a n j o , 4 2 6 F

. 3 d a t 2 3 2

. F u r t h e r , “ a s u b s t a n t i a l b r e a k i n t i me and ci r cumst an ces be t w een the pr ew ar ni ng s t at ement and t he M i r a n d a w a r n i n g ma ys u f f i c e i n mo s t c i r c u ms t a n c e s , a s i t a l l o ws t he ac cus ed t o di s t i ngui s h t he t w o cont ext s and appr eci at e t hat t he i nt err ogat i on has t aken a new t ur n. ” Sei ber t , 542 U

. S. at622 ( K ennedy , J

. , conc u rr i ng)

. I n det er m i ni ng t he ef fi cac yof t he m i ds t r eam w ar ni ngs ( i

. e. , w het hert he bel at ed advi s ement s u f f icien tl y“c u red ” the tai n t of the in it ial M ir an d a v iolati o n ), cour t s m ayal s o cons i dert he degr ee of over l ap betw een the s ubs t ance of pr e- w ar ni ng and pos t

- w ar ni ng s t at ement s and ques t i ons , w het h er the s ame i nt er r ogat or s w er e i nvol ved, t he lev e l o f d e tail o f th e p re -w a rn in g sta tem e n ts, a n d th e e x ten t to w hich int err og at ors t reat ed the po st -w arni ng qu est i on i ng as a c o n tin u a tio n o f

th e p re -w a r n in g s e ss io n . Id . at 6 1 5 (p lu ra lit y opi ni on) ; s ee St ew ar t , 388 F. 3d 1090 ( i f t w o- s t ep i nt er r ogat i on30 st rat eg y i s i ntent i on al l yun dert aken , “t he cen t ral vo l un t ari ness i nqui r yof El s t ad has been r epl ace d bya pr es um pt i v e rul e of excl us i on, s ubj ectt o a mul t i fac t or t es t forchange i n t i m e, pl ace , an d circu m stan ce s fro m the f ir st st atem en t t o the s ec o n d ”). B eca use it w as uncl earbas ed on t he r ecor d avai l abl e t o t he N ar anj o cour t w het her t he M i r anda w ar ni ngs t her e w er e omi t t ed as a r es ul t of a “ r ooki e mi s t ake” or a del i ber at e i nt er r og ati on s t r at egy , w e r emanded t he ca s e t o t he di s t r i ct cour t t o m ake the r eq u i s i t e Se i b e r t f

i n d i n g s . Nar a n

j o , 4 2 6 F. 3 d a t 2 3 2

. No s u ch a m b ig u ity e x is ts in th is c a s e . H er e , DEA Sp e c i a l Age n t Er i c Hug h e s a n d Ta s k For ce O ffi cerL aw r ence C ol l i ns ar r es t ed D efe ndant on t he s t r eet pur s uantt o a fede r al dr ug i ndi ct m entbut t ol d hi m i ni t i al l yt hat it w a s f o r a sta te w a rra n t. T h is w a s d o n e , at le a st in p a rt, t o pr eventG r een f

r om inv o k ing hi s r i ght s att he out s et

. A pp. at 59A ( “A nd, qui t e fr ankl y , had I s aid [] I w as D E A

. . . and had h im o u t o n th e s c e n e , it’ s q u ite p o s s ib le h e w o u ld h a v e s a id , I w ant to s peak t o m yl aw y err i ghtaw ay . ”)

. A ft erar r i vi ng at D E A offi ces , D efe ndantw as t aken t o an i nt er r ogat i on r oom by H ughes and C ol l i ns and onl yt hen w as i nfo rm ed of t he t r ue nat u r e of hi s ar r es t

. H ughes t ol d G r een “ not t o s ayany t hi ng fur t her , ” atw hi ch poi nt t he vi deo w as pl ay ed. A ft ers eei ng t he vi deo, G r een made a number o f v erbal and non- verbal s ta te m e n ts w h ic h a c k n o w le d g e d h is g u ilt. H ughes t hen i m m edi at el y admi ni s t er ed t h e M i r anda w ar ni ngs , an d G r een a l l egedl yw ai ved hi s r i ght s , al t hough no w ai verfor m w as s i gned. H ughes as ked G r een i f he r ecogni zed a n y o n e o n th e v id e o . A f ter a lo n g p a u se , D e f

e n d a n t sh o o k h is head and s ai d t hat he w as “s m oki ng a l ot of w eed back then and j us t di dn’ t r emem ber

. ” H ughes r emi nded G r een of t he evi denceTh e h o u r a n d 2 0 mi n u t e b r e a k h e r e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t he 14 p o s t- M ir a n d a q u e s tio n in g . 31 t heyhad aga i ns t hi m , t he s ever i t yof t he cha rge s, an d r epea t ed t he quest i on. D efe ndantagai n gave the s ame r es pons e thathe di d n o t r eca l l

. H ughes and C ol l i ns t hus s us pended the ques t i oni ng, m oved D efe ndantbac k t o a hol di ng cel l , and s ought t he ass i s t ance of t he A U SA as s i gned t o t he ca s e. A ft er t he pr os ecut or arr i ved atD E A offi ces appr oxi m at el yan hour and 20 mi nut es l at er , G r een w as agai n t aken t o an i nt er vi ew r oom and H ughes and C ol l i ns , t hi s t im e ac compani ed byt he A U SA , r es um ed quest i oni ng. A ft eral l t hr ee gove r nm ent offi ci al s emphasi zed t he pot ent i al cr i m i nal penal t i es h e w as f a c i n g , Def

e n d a n t r e s p o n d e d : “ W ha t d o y o u wan t t o k n o w?” C ol l i ns t hen as ked G ree n i f he ha d evers ol d cr ack c ocai ne; G r een r es ponded t hathe had d o ne s o onl yonce, and ges t ur ed t ow ar d t he vi deo. D efe ndant t hen t ol d t he agent s t he i dent i t yof h is d ru g s o u rc e f

o r t h e p a rt ic u la r t ra n s a c tio n . B eca us e H ughes openl y s t at ed at t he suppr es s i on hear i ng th a t h e in ten tio n a llyre f ra in e d f r o m a d v isin g G re e n o f h is M i r anda r i ght s pr i or t o s how i ng t he vi deo, Sei ber t di ct at es t hat G r een’ s p o s t

- M i r a n d a s t a t e me n t s whi c h r e l a t e t o h i s p r eM i r a n d a a d mi s s i o n s a r e p r e s u mp t i v e l yi n a d mi s s i b l e u n l e s s we det er m i ne t hatt he s econd i nt er r ogat i on s es s i on w as carr i ed out unders uffi ci ent l ydi ffe r entci r cumst ance s s o as t o have c ur ed th e in itia l ta in t. S e ib e rt , 5 4 2 U .S . a t 6 2 2 (K e n n e d y , J ., concur r i ng)

. I n t hi s i ns t ance , how ever , t her e w as no i nt er veni ng l apse of t i m e betw een the w arned a nd un w a rne d i nt e rrogat i on s. 14 C f. i d. ( a br eak be t w een pr ew ar ni ng s t at ement s and advi s ement32 of r i ght s m ays ugges t t o a r eas onabl e per s on t hatt he t w o s t ages of i nt err ogat i on ar e di s t i nct )

. A l l of t he r el evantques t i oni ng h e r e o c c u r r e d i n t h e s a me l o c a t i o n , a n d wi t h e s s e n t i a l l yt h e s a me i nt er r ogat or s . T he foc us of t he t w o cons ecut i ve i nt er r ogat i on s es s i ons w as i dent i cal , as w er e t he ques t i ons as ked. A nd al t hough neit h er agentengage d i n expr es s ques t i oni ng pr eM i r anda, forpurpos es of our cons t i t ut i onal anal y s i s , t her e i s no di ffe r ence bet w een show i ng D efe ndant a vi deo of hi m engagi ng i n a cr i m i nal actand i nfor m i ng hi m of t he exi sten ce of s uch e v id e n c e a g a in st h im

. N o n e o f th e se u n d isp u ted f

a c ts in d ica te th a t an yso rt o f

c u r a tiv e m e a su re s w e re u n d e rta k e n in D e f e n d a n t’ s c a s e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , we a c k n o wl e d g e t h a t Gr e e n ’ s i n i t i al pr e- M i r anda s t at eme n ts a ft ers eei ng t he vi deo w er e not expr es s l yi ncul pat or yor par t i cul ar l yd etai l ed, and t hatt he prew a rni ng i nter rogat i on sess i on l ast ed o nlya few m i nu t es. H ow ever , D efe ndant ’ s pr ew ar ned s t at ement s , al t houg h n ot expr es s , w er e neve r t hel es s i m pl i ci t admi s s i ons o f g u i l t

. See di s cus s i on supra Sect i on I I

. B

. 1. Fur t her m or e, i n l i ght of t he fa ct th a t th e e n tire in ter ro g a tio n se ss io n a t issu e h e re w a s re lativ e ly b rie f – n o t su rp risin g g iv e n th a t th e p a rticu lar c h a rg e d c rim e in t hi s cas e cons i s t ed s ol el y o f a si ngl e hand- t o- hand drug s al e – w e bel i eve the fac t or of t he exha us t i ve natur e of t he pr ew ar ni ng q u e stio n in g a n d o f th e a d m iss io n s is n o t p a rticu lar lyh e lp f u l to t he s uffi ci encyof t he cur at i ve m eas ur es i nqui r yi n t hi s i ns t ance . U n d e r th e u n iq u e c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e f o re u s , w h e re ever y t hi ng occur r ed in o n e cont i nuous s pan i n t he s ame pl ace a n d w ith th e sa m e p e o p le, w e th in k it u n lik e lyth a t a r e a so n a b le per s on i n D efe ndant ’ s pos i t i on w oul d have vi ew ed t he pr e- and pos t

- M i r anda que s t i oni ng as dist inc t epi s odes , nor w oul d he33 h a v e th o u g h t th a t h e h a d a m e a n in g f u l ch o ice in w h e th e r to cont i nue t o m ake i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s . See U ni t ed St at es v. A gui l ar , 384 F

. 3 d 520, 525 ( 8t h C i r . 2004) ( excl udi ng confe s s i on underSei ber t )

. U nl i ke t hos e of t he vas t m aj or i t yof th e c a se s th a t co u rts h a v e e n c o u n ter e d in th e w a k e o f S e ib e rt, t he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e is unambi guous t hatt he i ni t i al vi ol at i on of M i r anda w as not m er el yhapl ess o r i nadver t ent , but r at her w as “ an inten ti o n al w ith h o lding tha t w a s p art of a larg er, nefa ri ou s p l ot” t o preven t D efen dan t from i nv ok i ng his ri gh t s so as t o g ain hi s confe s s i on. C f. R ei ner t v. L ar ki ns , 379 F. 3d 76, 9 1 ( 3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (n o S e ib e rt v io latio n w h e re p o lice a p p e a r to have uni nt ent i onal l y negl ect ed t o admi ni s t erM i r anda w ar ni ngs a t t he ou t s e t of

qu e s t i on i ng ) ; U ni t e d St a t e s v. Y a mba, 40 7 F. S u p p . 2 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 8 (W .D

. P a . 2 0 0 6 ) (H a rd im a n , J.) (sin g le u n in ten tio n a l u n w a rn e d q u e stio n d id n o t tain t su b se q u e n t, w ar ned i nt er r ogat i on and confes s i on)

. T hi s danger ous pr act i ce i s p r eci s el yt he t ype of s y s t emat i c ci r cumvent i on of M i r anda that t he S up r e me Cour t s ou gh t t o r oo t ou t i n Se i be r t , a nd w e must t hus decl i ne t o count enanc e t hes e hi ghl y i r r egul ar p roce dur es h ere . B ec au se w e find that insu ff ici en t cu rati v e m ea su res w ere under t aken i n D efe ndant ’ s cas e, Sei ber t r equi r es t he exc l us i on o f G re e n ’s p o s t- M ir a n d a s ta te m e n ts a s w e ll.

3. H arm l essness Fi nal l y , al t hough t he admi s s i on of D efe ndant ’ s pr e- and pos t

- M i r anda s t at ement s w as pl ai nl ycont r ar yt o s et t l ed co n sti t ut i onal pr i nci pl es , w e may not r ever s e i f w e ca n det er m i ne “be y ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he er r or compl ai ned of di d not co n tr ibut e t o t he ver di ctobt ai ned. ” C hapman v. C al i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U. S. 1 8 , 2 4 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; M i t c h e l l , 1 4 5 F. 3 d at 579 (C h a p m a n a p p lies to c o n stitu tio n a l e rro rs) . W e h a v e lit tle34 t roubl e conc l udi ng t hatt he err or her e w as not har m l es s under C h a p m a n . D efe ndant ’ s admi s s i ons w er e a cent r al par t of t he G over nm ent ’ s cas e att r i al

. I ndeed, t he pros ecut or hi ghl i ght ed G re e n ’ s re a c tio n s a n d sta tem e n ts in h e r o p e n in g sta tem e n t, el i ci t ed di r ectt es t i m onyper t ai ni ng t o t hei r su b st ance i n t he G o v e rn m e n t’s c a se -in -c h ief , a n d v ig o ro u slystre ss e d th e ir damagi ng i m pactatcl os i ng. O ut s i de of t hes e st atem ent s , t he ext entof t he G over nm ent ’ s pr oper l yadmitt ed evi dence c o n s is te d o f a tw o -s e c o n d a u d io re c o rd in g o f a p h o n e c a ll, a s ho rtvi deo depi ct i ng t he pr ofi l e of t he s us pectengagi ng i n a dr ug t r ans act i on, and t he t es t i m onyof t w o D E A agent s t hat D e f e n d a n t w a s s e e n e n t e r i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r o l l e d b u y, and t hat i t w as D efe ndant w ho s poke on t he t ape a nd w as caught on t he vi deo. T he def

ens e parr i ed w i t h t he t es t i m onyof M i chae l B r ow n, t he confi dent i al i nfor m ant i nvol ved i n the c o nt r ol l ed t r ans act i on, t hati t w as not G r een w ho s ol d hi m t he drugs i n t he M a y2 0 0 2 t r a ns a c t i o n . W h i l e t h e Go v e r n me n t d i d ma k e s o me headw aydur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on i n s ugges t i ng t o t he j ur yt hat B row n w as not t he m ost con vinci ng w i t ness, t he C I nevert heles s rem a in e d st eadf

astt o h i s accou nt of t he ev ents

. U nd er t hese ci r cums tanc es, and i n l i ght of t he fa ctt hatt he i dent i t yof t he i nd i vidual dep i ct ed i n the vi deo t ape w as perhaps t he m o st h o tly co n test ed issue at t ri a l, w e c an n o t i m ag ine th at G ree n ’s i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed s t at ement s confe s s i ng t o hi s i nvol vement d i d n o t im p a c t th e v e rd ic t. 

### W e thus m us t r e ve r s e , be c aus e the erro r h ere w as n o t h arm less b eyo n da reaso n ab le d o ub t.35 

### I I I

. CO NC LU SI ON Th e Dis tric t Cou rt

er re d in adm itti ng the wri tt en statem en t o f

th e co n f

id en tial in f

o rm an t a s a p resen t-sen se im pres si on . A dd it ionall y , the adm is si onof Defend ant’ s pre an d p o st-M iran d as t at e me n t s v i o l at e ddu e p r o c e s s , an dserio u sly i m pa i r e d the fairn e s s and i nt e gr i ty of the tr i a l ; whe n a compl a i ne d- of

e rr or i s on e of s uc h a s i gn i fi c ant

c on s t i t ut ional di m e ns i on, the fa i l ur e t o c orr e c t i t woul d pl a i nl y

r e s ul t i n a fu nd am enta l mis carr ia ge of ju st ic e. Since non e of thes e e rr ors were harm le ss un der the re le vant st andards, we m ust t here fo re v acate G reen ’s co n v ictio nan drem an dth e m atter f o r a n ewtrial.