FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 30 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1253 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-20572 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LUIS GONZALE Z-LAUZAN, JR ., a.k .a. Lui s Go nz al ez, J r., a.k .a. Lui si to , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry30, 200 6) Be fo re H U L L , MA RC U S an d H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. HU LL , C ircuit Judg e:See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602 (1966). 1 2 Appe llant L uis G onz al ez -L au zan, Jr . ( “ G onz al ez -L au zan” ) ap pe al s hi s convictio n on on e count of prem editated m urder of a feder al inform ant and related co unt s of c onsp ir ac y

and f ir earm s of

fe nse s. G onz al ez -L au zan c ont en ds tha t he w as int er ro ga te d by

pol ic e in v iol at ionof

his F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, an d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by de ny ing his m oti on t o su ppr es s st at em en ts h e m ad e af te r he w as r ea d M ir an daw ar nin gs. T he dis tr ic t c ourt su ppr es se d hi s 1 statem ents m ade before the warnings, but Gonzalez-L auzan argues that the district co urt a lso sho uld

have sup pr es se d hi s st at em en ts m ad e af te r the w ar

nin gs b ec au se of the c ont inu ous int er

ro ga tio n and the pol ic e’ s de lay in adm ini ste ri ng the w a rn i n g s . A f

t e r r e v i e wan do r a l ar g u me n t , w e a f f i rm. I. F AC TS In January

2002 , A lexander T exidor (“ Te xido r”) wa s arre sted by feder al au tho ri tie s f

or the il le ga l purc ha se of

f ir earm s. F oll ow ing his arr es t, T ex ido r ag re ed to co ope rate w ithlawe nf or ce m en t. T ex ido r’ s c oope ratio n le d to the January 8, 2002, ar

rest of L uis Gonzalez-L auzan, Senior (“ Senior”), Gonzalez Lau zan ’s fat he r, on fir earm s ch arg es . A tto rn ey P et er Ra be n ( “ Ra be n” ) re pr es en te d S en ior . I n January 200 2, Ra be n m et w ithS en ior

se ve ra l t im es , usu al ly

in the pr es en ce of

S en ior ’ s so n,3

G onz al ez -L au zan. A cc or din g to Ra be n’ s su bse que nt t es tim ony , pr ior to the de ath of Texi do r, Sen io r ha d d eci de d t o re so lv e th e fi rear m s ch arg es ag ai ns t h im by ple a. H ow ev er , on J anuary

28, 200 2, T ex ido r w as m ur de re d. Ine ith er Marc h or Apr il 2002 , G onz al ez -L au zan w as inc ar ce rate d a t the Fe de ra l D et en tio n C en te r in M iam i f or avio la tio n of

sup er vis ed r el ea se on a

pr ior convictio n. T his incarceration was unrelated to the death of T exidor. G onzalezL au zan r et ai ne d R ab en , the sam e attor ne y w ho h ad r ep re se nte d hi s f

athe r, to re pr es en t hi m

w ithr es pe ct

to his sup er

vis ed r el ea se vio la tio n. S om et im e in June or July 2002 , G onzalez-L auzan resolved the violatio n of supervised release by an ag re em en t t o se rv e te n m onths’ inc ar ce ratio n. O n Ju ly 11, 200 2, G onz al ez -L au zan and thr ee c o- de fe ndants , inc lud ing Senior, we re indicted on charges relate d to the m urder of T exidor. O n Septem ber 18, 200 2, S en ior

w as arr es te d and m ad e his ini tia l a ppe ar an ce in the T ex ido r m atte r, r ep re se nte d by

Ra be n. T he int er vie wof G onz al ez -L au zan a t i ssu e in this c as e al so o cc ur re d on Se pte m be r 18, 200 2. O n M ar ch27, 200 3, G onz al ez -L au zan m ove d to sup pr es s inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts h e m ad e to the of fi ce rs dur ing that i nte rv ie w . T he district court refe rred G onzalez-L auzan’ s m otion to supp ress to a m agistrate j udge, w ho h el d ahe ar ing . O n June 5, 200 3, the m ag istrate j udge sub m itt ed aRe port and4

Recom m endation m aking findi ngs abou t the interview which the dist rict court later a dopt ed in full. T he parties do not di spute that th e interviewtranspired as fo ll ows . O n S ep te m

be r 18, 200 2, G onz al ez -L au zan w as se rv ing his se nte nc e fo r violatin g supervisedrelea se on a previous conv iction; h e had not y et been ar rested or m ade his initial appearance on the m urder indictm ent in this case. T hat after noon , H ialeah, Florida Police O ffice r A lbert Na but (“Na but”), H ialeah Police D et ec tiv e Ra lphN az ar io ( “N az ar io” ) an d S pe ci al A ge nt J ac kie E lba um ( “El b au m”) o f

th e B u r e auo f

Al c o h o l , To b a c c o , an dF i r e a rms ( c o l l e c t i v e l y,

“ officer s”), took Gonzalez-L auzan out of the Federa l De tention Center to an interview r oom

in the courthou se. Once in the interview room , the thre e office rs sp en t b et ween two -an d- a-h al f an d t hr ee h ou rs tal ki ng to Gon zal ez-La uz an . T he thr ee of

fi ce rs m ad e a de ci sio n no t t o a dm ini ste r Mi randaw ar nin gs t o Gonzalez -L auzan at the beginning of this m eeting. I nstead, the offic ers decided that the y w oul d si m

ply de sc ri be to G onz al ez -L au zan th e ev ide nc e the gov er nm en t ha d a ccu m

ul at edag ai ns t h im

wit h re sp ectto hi s i nv ol ve m en t i n Tex id or ’s m ur de r. The off icers hoped that the strength of this evidence would persuade Gonzalez La uzan to talk about his participation in the killin g of Te xido r. T he officer s5

planne d to giv e G onz al ez -L au zan M ir an daw ar nin gs o nly

if it be cam e ap pare nt that G onz al ez -L au zan w oul d be w ill ing to m ak e a cu sto dia l st at em en t. The off icers began the session byexplaining to Gonzalez- La uzan that they we re w orking o n a m

urder investigatio n, that they believed Gonzalez -L auzan w as invo lved in th e m

urder, and that they

knew G onzalez-L auzan had been repre sented by counsel previou sly . Gonzalez -L auzan responded, “ I know m y rights.” Be fore pr oc ee din g f

urthe r, the of

fi ce rs ins tr

uc te d G onz al ez -L au zan th at “ w e ar e not as kin g y ou any

que sti ons. W e don’ t w an t y ou t o say anythi ng. W e j ust

have som ethin g to say

to y ou and w e as k th at

y ou l ist ento it so tha t y ou c anund er stand whe re we ar e co m in g fr om .” Af ter this introdu ctory

adm oniti on, the office rs described the evidence they had accum

ulated against Gonzalez-L auzan in detail. T hey told Gonzalez-L auzan that his father had been arr ested in relation to Texidor’ s death. T he officer s expla ine d th at

the y ha d do ne e xte nsi ve sur

ve ill an ce of

G onz al ez -L au zan and h is fam ily , ha d ana ly ze d ph one r ec or ds and h ad obt ai ne d th e co ope ratio n of one of Gonzalez -L auzan’ s co-conspirators, all lea ding themto believe that GonzalezLau zan ha d o rch es tra te d t he m ur de r of Texi do r. At sever al points during th is description , the off icers instructed Gonzale zLau zan jus t t o l is te n a ndto ldhi m th atth e o ffi cers di d n ot ha ve an y qu es ti on s.6

Gonzalez -L auzan m ostlylistened to th e evidence, occasionally say ing th ings li ke,

“ I’ m no m as te rm ind , ” “ I ’ m

not the kin gpi n, ” or

“ I’ m not the pe rs on. ” A t t im es , the of fi ce rs w oul d a llo waf

ewm inu te s of

sil en ce to se e if

the re w as any

r es pons e fr om G onz al ez -L au zan. Approxim ately

two-and-a-half hours into th e m eeting, G onzalez-L auzan stated sudd enly , “ okay , y ou go t m e. ” G onzalez-L auzan w as then im m ediately rea d his Mi randar igh ts. G onz al ez -L au zan si gne d af orm ind ic at ing that he und er sto od hi s M ira nd a ri gh ts an d a gr eedto waiv e th em an d s pe akto law en fo rcem en t. At the onset of the postwarning interrogation, Gonzalez -L auzan indictated that he w oul d pr ef

er not to an sw er

any que sti ons ab out

his f athe r. I n r es pons e to G onz al ez -L au zan’ s r eque st, the of fi ce rs a gr ee d and d id n ot a sk h im any que sti ons ab out his f athe r. D ur ing the int er

ro ga tio n, G onz al ez -L au zan m ad e m ult ipl e inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts. G onz al ez -L au zan a dm itt ed that he ins tr

uc te d th e co co nspi rator s to te ac h T ex ido r a le sso n, that he ha d pr ovi de d th e m ur de r w ea pon and silencer to co-defendant Jam es W iggin s, and that he had been present w hen W iggin s shot and killed Texidor. In his m otion to supp ress, Gonzalez -L auzan argued that the district court shou ld s uppr es s hi s st at em en ts m ad e both be fo re and a ft er he sig ne d th e w ai ve r of his Mi randar igh ts. G onz al ez -L au zan arg ue d th at a t the ti m e of

the int er vie whe7

w as r ep re se nte d by

an a tto rn ey , Ra

be n, and tha t G onz al ez -L au zan ha d in voke d hi s ri ght to co unse l. G onz al ez -L au zan a lso c ont en de d th at he w as int er

ro ga te d in vio la tio n of

his F if th A m en dm en t r igh ts unde r Mi randav. A ri zo na , 384 U . S. 436 , 86 S. C t. 1602 (1966 ). T he m ag istrate j udge r ec om m en de d th at

G onz al ez -L au zan’ s pr e- Mi randa state m en ts b e supp re sse d, but that the state m en ts m ad e af te r w ai vin g hi s M ir an da rights sh ouldbe adm itted. Citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 100 S. Ct 1682 ( 1980 ), the m ag istrate j udge c onc lud ed that e ve n th oughthe of

fi ce rs ha d no t as ke d Go nz al ez-La uz an an y qu es ti on s dur in g t he fir stpo rti on of t he in te rv ie w, their presentation of evidence to Gonzalez- La uzan under the circum stances constitu ted “ the functional equi valent” of express question ing because GonzalezL au zan’ s pr e- Mi randastate m en t “ w as not spo ntane ous but

w as in re spon se to w or ds and a ct ion s onthe part of the pol ic e, that the pol ic e kne ww er e lik el y to elicit an incrim inating response.” See Innis, 446 U. S. at 300-01, 100 S. Ct. at 1689 . A s su ch , the m ag istrate j udge r ec om m en de d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt su

ppr es s the state m en t, “ okay , y ou g ot m e, ” w hic h G onz al ez -L au za n m ad e be fo re be ing re ad his Mi randar igh ts. The m agistrate j udge next fou nd that on ce the off icers r ead G onzalezLa u z a n h i s M i r a n d ar i g h t s , Go n z a l e z - La u z a n wa i v e dth o s e r i g h t s “ kn o w i n g l y,At the suppression hea ring , Raben testified that he had r epre sented Gonzalez-L auzan 2 conce rninghis supervised re lease violation and duringthe Texidor murder investig ation, but that he wa s not repre sentingGonzalez-L auzan on the murde r indictment, bec ause Rabe n would not be able to repre sent both Gonzalez-L auzan and his father, Senior, on the T exidor matter. Shortly afte r beingrea d his Miranda rights, Gonzalez-L auzan aske d the offic ers if he 3 could speak to another inmate and talk to the off icer s “tomorrow.” The off icer s advised that they wer e “not sure they

would be ther e tomorrow,” but also reiter ated that Gonzalez-L auzan did not ne e d to ans we r q

ue sti on s o r g ive a

state me nt i f h e did

no t w ant t o. Go nza le z-L a uza n a g re e d to t a l k w i th o u td e l ay. 8 free ly and volu ntarily .” T he m agistrate j udge no ted that Gonzalez- La uzan

“ understand[s] and reads and writes E nglis h, he w ent to hig h school and appeared to unde rs tand and a ff

irm at ive ly

w ai ve his Mi randar igh ts. ” T he m ag istrate j udge also foundthat “ [d] uring the m eeting, there wa s no ho stilitybetwee n the parties an d a ll the part ie s w er e re spe ct fu l of e ac h othe r . . . . T he re w er e no thr eats o r coercion by

police.” The m agistrate j udge foun d that Gonzalez- La uzan had previousl y

rec eived counsel from

Raben, but m ade no finding s as to whether Raben w as repre senting Gonzalez -L auzan at the tim e of the interview . Rather , 2 the m ag istrate j udge de te rm ine d th at , in an y e ve nt, G onz al ez -L au zan di d no t a sk t o speak to an attorney

and did no t advise law e nforcem ent that he was r epresented by c ouns el a t any

ti m e dur ing the S ep te m

be r 18, 200 2 in te rv ie w . B as ed on the se 3 facts, the m agistrate j udge recom m ended that the dis trict court deny Gonzalez La uzan’ s m otion to supp ress w ith respect to the statem ents Gonzalez- La uzan m ad e af te r sig nin g th e w ai ve r of

his Mi randar igh ts.In revie winga district cour t’s denial of a

motion to s uppress, this court re views fa ctual 4 finding s for c lear

err or and the application of the law to those fa cts de novo. United States v. Ac os ta , 3 63 F .3 d 1 14 1, 11 44 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) . G on zal e z-L a uza n r a ise s n o o the r i ssu e s in thi s dir e c t a pp e a l. 9 O n Ju ly 3, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ff irm ed and a dopt ed

the Re port and Re co m m en da tio n w ith out

r ev isi on, de ny ing obj ec tio ns b y both part ie s. T he district court therefore supp ressed the statem ent, “ okay , y ou go t m e, ” but denied Gon zal ez-La uz an ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s wi th res pe ctto all ot he r st at em en ts . A jury tri al was h el d b et ween Jan ua ry 20 , 20 04 , andJan ua ry

29 , 20 04 . On January 29, 200 4, the j ur

y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t f

ind ing G onz al ez -L au zan gu ilty of se ve n c harg es , inc lud ing the int en tio na l ki lli ng o f T ex ido r, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. §15 12( a) (1 )( A ). O n M ay 17, 200 4, G onz al ez -L au zan w as se nte nc ed to lif e im pr iso nm en t. I n hi s di re ct appe al , G onz al ez -L au zan no wc ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng o n hi s m oti on t o su ppr es s onboth F if

th and S ixth A m en dm en t gr ound s. 4 II. F IF TH A M EN D M EN T C LA IM A. Elstad and S eiber t Inarg uin g a

bout the a dm iss ibi lity

of G onz al ez -L au zan’ s po stw ar nin g state m en ts, both part ie s f oc us o n th e Su

pr em e Co urt de ci sio ns i n O re gon v. E lst ad , 470 U . S. 298 , 105 S . Ct . 128 5 ( 1985 ), and M iss our i v. S ei be rt , 542 U . S. 600 , 12410

S. Ct. 2601 (2004), tw o cases addressing delay ed Miranda w arnings adm inistered after the police had already

begun qu estionin g a defendant. G onzalez-L auzan co nte nds that S ei be rt

c ontro ls and r en de rs his state m en ts i na dm iss ibl e. T he go ve rn m en t as se rts th atSei be rt i s m at eri al ly diff eren t an d t ha t El st adco nt ro ls . Alter natively , the governm ent contends that Gonzalez -L auzan’ s war ned statem ents are a dm issib le under Seibert. T hus, before discussing GonzalezL au zan’ s c as e, w e re vie wboth de ci sio ns i n de ta il. InE lst ad , the S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that e ve n w he re asus pe ct , w hil e in custody , has answere d unwarned questions from police, the suspect still m ay va lid ly w ai ve his Mi randar igh ts and p ro vid e adm iss ibl e state m en ts a ft er Mi randa warnings. Elstad, 470 U.S . at 314, 105 S. Ct. at 1296. A ccording to Elstad, “ [a] subs eque nt a dm ini str at ionof Mi randaw ar

nin gs t o asus pe ct

w ho h as giv ena vol unt ar y but unw ar ne d st at em en t or din ar ily

sho uld suf fi ce to re m ove the co nd it io ns th atpre cl ud edad m is si on of t he earl ie r st at em en t.” Id . In E lstad, a w itness to a burglary contacted the police and toldthem that Mi ch ae l E lst ad , an e igh te en -y ear old m al e, ha d c om

m itt ed the bur glary . I d. a t 30 0, 105 S. Ct. at 1288. A fter obtaining a war rant for E lstad’ s arre st, tw o poli ce officer s drove to Elstad’ s hom e. Id. E lstad’ s m other answer ed the door and led the of fi ce rs int o th e hous e. I d. Whil e one of fi ce r ta lke d to E lst ad ’ s m oth er in the11

kit ch en , the oth er

a ske d E lst ad

to ge t dr es se d and t o a cc om pany the of fi ce r to the liv ing r oom . I d. T he of

fi ce r, arm ed

w ithan arr es t w ar

rant, the n di re ct ly que sti one d E lst ad

about the c ri m e w ith out

giv ing him

any Mi randaw ar

nin gs. Ac cording to th e office r’ s testim ony , the f ollowing exchang e occurr ed be tw ee n th e of

fi ce r an d E lst ad :

“ I sa t do w n w ithMr . E lst ad and I a ske d hi m

if he w as aw ar e of

w hy Dete ct iv e Mc All is te r an d my se lf we re t he re t o t al k wi th hi m . He state d no , he ha d no ide a w hy w e w er e the re . I the n a ske d hi m if he kne wape rs on b y

the nam e of

G ro ss, and h e sa id y es , he did , and a lso ad de d th at

he he ar d th at

the re w as ar obbe ry

a t the G ro ss h ouse . A nd at that po int

I tol d M r. E lst ad

that I f el t he w as inv olv ed

in that, and he looked at m e and stated, ‘ Ye s, I wa s there. ’ ” Id . a t 30 1, 105 S . Ct . a t 12 88- 89. T he gov er nm en t c onc ed ed

that E lst ad

w as in cu st od y at t he ti m e o f th is in te rro ga ti on . Id. at31 5, 1 05 S. Ct. at 12 96 . A ft er a ski ng E lst ad

the se que sti ons w ith out

the be ne fi t of

aMi randa warning and o btainin g an incrim inating answer from Elstad, the officer s tr an spor te d E lst ad to he ad quart er s. I d. a t 30 1, 105 S . Ct . a t 12 89. Appr oxi m at el y on e h ou r la te r, th e o ffi cers forth e fi rs t t im e ad vi se d El st adof h is Mi ran da rig ht s. Id . E lst ad

w ai ve d hi s r igh ts and g av e a fu ll w ri tte n c onf es sio n, e xpl ai nin g th at

he had robbed th e G ross hou se because he knewthey we re out of town. Id. E lstad

“ co nc ed e[ d] that the of

fi ce rs m ad e no thr eats o r pr om ise s e ith er a t hi s r es ide nc e or atth e Sh eri ff’s o ffi ce.” Id . at 3 02 , 10 5 S . Ct. at12 89 .12

It w as conceded that Elstad’ s prewarning statem ent, “ I w as there, ” w as p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e da s o b t a i n e di n v i o l a t i o n o f M i r a n d a . I d . H o w e v e r , th e S up r e me Co urt c onc lud ed

that de spi te the of

fi ce rs ’ ini tia l f

ai lur e to g ive E lst ad

the Mi randa w a rn i n g s , E l s t a d ’s p o s t w a rn i n g c o n f e s s i o n r e ma i n e da d mi s s i b l e . T h e S up r e me Co urt r em ar

ke d onthe pr es um

pti on unde rl y ing Mi randathat “ [o ] nc e w ar ne d, the susp ect is fr ee to exer cise his own voliti on in d eciding whether or not to m ake a state m en t t o th e au tho ri tie s. ” I d. a t 30 8, 105 S . Ct . a t 12 93. A cc or din g to the Su pr em e Co urt, “ [t ] houg h M ir an dar equir es that the unw ar ne d a dm iss ionm

ust be supp re sse d, the a dm iss ibi lity of any sub se que nt s ta te m en t sh oul d turnin the se circum stances solely

on whether it is knowingly and volu ntarily

m ade.” Id. at 309, 105 S . Ct . a t 12 93. T he S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that E lst ad

ha d gi ve n th e writ te n c on fes si on free ly andvo lu nt ari ly andno t as th e res ul t o f po li ce co erci on . Id . at 3 14 , 10 5 S . Ct. at 12 96 . S ub s e qu e n tt o G o n z a l e z - L au z a n ’s tr i a l , i n M i s s o u r i v . S e i b e rt , th e S up r e me Co urt c onsi de re d a ga in the a dm iss ibi lity of state m en ts m ad e af

te r be la te d M ir an da warnings during conti nuin g interrogations . In Seibert, the police awakened Sei be rt a t 3 :0 0 a .m . at a h os pi ta l wh ere h er s on was b ei ng tre at edforbu rn s. Seibert, 542 U.S . at 604, 124 S. Ct. at 2606 (pluralityopini on). T he police arre sted Seibert and took her to the pol ice departm ent. I d. T he police then13

fo llo w ed de partm en ta l i nstru ct ion s to r ef ra in f ro m a dm ini ste ri ng M ir an da w ar nin gs p ri or

to fi rs t qu es tio nin g su spe ct s. I d. T he pol ic e pur sue d ade lib er at e str at eg y of giv ing S ei be rt

Mi randaw ar

nin gs o nly

a ft er int er ro ga tin g he r an d dr aw ing out

ac onf es sio n. I d. a t 60 5- 06, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 06. T he plura lity de sc ri be d th e str at eg y

a s de sig ne d to und er

m ine the e ff

ec tiv en es s of

Mi randa warn in gs by del ib erat el y

gi vi ng th em

on ly after a su sp ectha d a lre ad y co nf es se d. Id . a t 60 9- 11, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 08- 09. Mor e spe ci fi ca lly , the pol ic e que sti one d th e de fe ndant S ei be rt e xte nsi ve ly for betw een thirty

and forty m inutes withou t reading any Miranda w arnings. Id. at 604- 05, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 06. A ft er S ei be rt ha d a dm itt ed

gui lt an d answ er ed

the pol ic e’ s e xte nsi ve and d et ai le d qu es tio ns, the pol ic e ga ve he r a tw en ty m inu te br eak. T he pol ic e the n is sue d th e Mi randaw ar nin gs t o S ei be rt

and o bta ine d a sig ne d w ai ve r of

he r ri ght s. I d. a t 60 5, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 06. T he pol ic e tur ne d ona ta pe r ec or de r an d r es um ed

que sti oni ng. I d. T he pol ic e re ha she d th e gr ound c o v e r e di n th e f

i r s t , u n w a rn e di n t e rr o g a t i o n , p r o d d i n g S e i b e rtt o g i v e th e s a me re spon se s sh e ha d gi ve n pr ev iou sly . I d. Aplura lity

of f our Jus tic es f

ound that this de lib er at e “ que sti on- fi rs t” te ch nique r en de re d S ei be rt ’ s po stw ar nin g st at em en ts i na dm iss ibl e. I d. a t 61 7, 124 S. Ct . a t 26 13. T he plura lity poi nte d ou t tha t “ [t ] he obj ec t of que sti on- fi rs t i s toTh e dis se nt a sse rt e d th at “ the plu ra lity g ive s in su ff

ic ie nt d e fe re nc e to E lst a d. ” Se ibe rt , 5 542 U.S. at 629, 124 S. Ct . at 2620 (O’ Connor, J ., dissenting) . In the dissent’s view, the admissibili ty

of Seibert’ s warne d statements should have be en eva luated solely “under the voluntariness standar ds centra l to the Fifth Amendme nt and re iterate d in Elstad.” I d. at 628, 124 S.Ct . at 2619. The dissent a dvocate d rema nding the case to determine whether Seibert’s wa

rned statements wer e made involuntarily . I d. 14 r e n d e r M i r a n d aw a rn i n g s i n e f

f e c t i v e b y w a i t i n g f

o r ap a rt i c u l a r l y o p p o rtu n e t i me to giv e them , a fter the suspect has alre ady confessed.” Id. at 611, 124 S. C t. at 2610 . T he plura lity

r ej ec te d a s “ ab sur d” the ide a that “ m er e re ci ta tio n of the li tany suf fi ce s to sa tis fy

Mi randain ev er

y c onc ei vable c ir cum stanc e. ” I d. R athe r, “ [t ] he thr es hol d is sue w he n in te rr ogator s qu es tio n f ir st and w ar

n late r is thus w he the r it w oul d be r ea sona

ble to fi nd tha t i n th es e ci rc um stanc es the w ar nin gs c oul d func tio n ‘ ef

fe ct ive ly ’ a s M ir an dar equir es . ” I d. a t 61 1- 12, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 10. T he plura lity

dis tin gui she d E lst ad

f ro m S ei be rt ’ s c as e by

not ing that i n E lst ad the of fi ce r’ s f ai lur e to g ive Mi randaw ar nin gs w as “ ar gua

bly inn oc en t ne gle ct ” or

a“ good -f

ai th M ir an dam ist ak e. ” Id . a t 61 5, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 12. T he plura lity e m pha siz ed that the f ac ts i n S ei be rt

w er e at “ the opp osi te e xtr em e” of E lst ad and “by any obj ec tiv e m ea sur e re ve al [e d] apol ic e str at eg y a da pte d to unde rm ine the Mi randaw ar nin gs. ” I d. a t 61 6, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 12.

5 T he plura lity

the n ou tli ne d f

ive f ac tor s “ that be ar

on whe the r Mi randa w ar nin gs d el ive re d m ids tr eam c oul d . . . a cc om

pli sh the ir

obj ec t. ” I d. a t 61 5, 124 S. Ct . a t 26 12. T he se c onsi de ratio ns i nc lud ed :15

[1 ] the c om

ple te ne ss and d et ai l of

the que sti ons an d answ er s inthe fir strou ndof i nt erro ga ti on , [2] th e o ve rlapp in g c on te nt of t he two state m en ts, [ 3] the ti m ing and s ettin g of the f ir st a nd the se co nd, [ 4] the c ont inu ity

of pol ic e pe rs onne l, and [ 5] the de gr ee to w hic h th e int er ro ga tor ' s qu es tio ns tre at ed the se co nd r ound

a s c ont inu ous w ith the f ir st. Id. The plurality

then applied th ese fa ctors in determ ining whether the m idstream warnings g iven to defendant Seibert served their purpose. W ithr es pe ct

to the f ir st tw o f ac tor s, the plura lity

obs er ve d th at “ [t ] he unwarned interrogation [of Se ibert] wa s . . . sy stem atic, exhaustive, and m anaged w ithpsy ch olo gic al ski ll. Whe n th e pol ic e w er e fi nis he d th er e w as li ttl e, if an yth in g, o f in cri m in at in g p ot en ti al lef t u ns ai d.” Id. at 61 6, 1 24 S. Ct. at 26 12 . W ith respect to factors three and four, the plurality noted that th e w arned int er ro ga tio n pr oc ee de d inthe sam e loc at iona s th e unw ar ne d in te rr ogatio n, o c c u rr e do n l y f

i f t e e n t o tw e n t y mi n u t e s l a t e r , an dw a s c o n du c t e db y t h e s a me of fi ce r w ho h ad

int er ro ga te d S ei be rt

a lr ea dy . I d. W ithr es pe ct to fa ct or f ive , the plura lity state d th at

the pol ic e did

not a dvi se S ei be rt

that he r unw ar

ne d st at em en ts could no t be used, but rather tr eated the w arned interrogation as a m ere co nti nuatio n of

the unw ar

ne d in te rr ogatio n, m ak ing it dif fi cu lt fo r Se ibe rt

to re fu se to r ep eat wha t sh e ha d sa id b ef or e. I d. a t 61 6- 17, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 12- 13. T he plura lity c onc lud ed

that “ [t ] he se c ir cum stanc es m ust be se ena s c ha lle ngi ng the16

co m pr eh en sib ili ty

and e ff ic ac y of the Mi randaw ar

nin gs t o th e poi nt tha t a re as ona ble pe rs on i n th e sus pe ct ’ s sh oe s w oul d no t have und er sto od the m to co nve y am es sa ge that sh e re ta ine d ac hoi ce about c ont inu ing to ta lk. ” I d. a t 61 7, 124 S. Ct. at 2613. (em

phasis add ed). Jus tic e K en ne dy

c onc ur re d inthe j udgm en t on ly

and p ro vid ed

the f if th v ote fo r the m aj or ity

in Se ibe rt . Jus tic e K en ne dy a gr ee d w iththe plura lity that the part ic ular “ que sti on- fi rs t” te ch nique a s e m plo y ed in Se ibe rt

“ unde rm ine s th e Mi randaw ar

nin g and o bsc ur es it s m eanin g. ” S ei be rt , 542 U . S. a t 61 8, 124 S . Ct . at 2 6 1 4 (K en n ed y, J. , c o n cu rr i n g ). J u s t i ce Ke n n ed y ag re edwi t h th e majo ri t y’ s poi nt tha t the tw o- ste p te ch nique use d w ithS ei be rt “pe rm its the a cc use d to co nc lud e that the r igh t no t t o r es pond did not e xis t whe n th e earl ie r inc ri m inatin g statem ents wer e m ade.” Id. at 620, 124 S. C t. at 2615 . Justi ce K ennedy stressed that the str at eg y

and t ec hni que use d inque sti oni ng S ei be rt is ba se d onthe assum ption that Miranda w ill m ean less to a defendant “ when re cited m id in te rro ga ti on , aft er i nc ul pa to ry st at em en ts ha ve alr eady

be en ob ta in ed .” Id . A ft er not ing that the int er

ro ga tin g of

fi ce r re lie d onS ei be rt ’ s pr ew ar nin g statem ents to ob tain the post warning statem ents, Justice Ke nnedy point ed out that

“ [t] he postwarning interview re sem bled a cross-exam ination ” and “ [t] he officerIn Seibert, Jus tice Ke nnedy provided the f

ifth vote to suppress Seibert’ s warne d 6 state me nts , whic h w e qu ote a bo ve , a nd he c on c ur

re d o n th e na

rr ow e st gro un ds . Se ibe rt , 5 42 U. S. at 61 8, 12 4 S. Ct. at 26 14 (K e nn e dy , J., c on c ur ri ng ). “ Whe n a

fr a g me nte d Co ur

t de c ide s a

c a se and no sing le rationale explaining the r esult enjoy s the assent of f ive J ustices, the holdingof the Court may be vie we d a s th at po sit ion take n b y tho se Me mbe rs wh o c on c ur re d in the jud g me nts on the nar rowe st gr ounds.” Mar

ks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S. C t. 990 (1977) (quotation marks omitted). 17 confronted the defendant with her inadm issib le prew arning statem ents and pu shed he r to a cknow le dge the m . ” Id . a t 62 1, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 15. How ever, Justice Kennedy disagreed with the plurality ’ s use of a

“ m ult if ac tor te st tha t a

ppl ie s to e ve ry

tw o- sta ge int er

ro ga tio n. ” I d. a t 62 1- 22, 124 S. Ct . a t 26 15- 16. Jus tic e K en ne dy state d th at

“ Mi randa ’ s c lari ty

is one of it s str en gth s, ” an d th at

the plura lity ’ s te st “ cu ts t oo b ro ad ly ” an d “ m ay se rv e to unde rm ine that c lari ty . ” I d. a t 62 2, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 16. R athe r, Jus tic e K en ne dy advoc at ed

“ a narr ow er

te st a ppl ic ab le onl y

in the inf re que nt c as e, suc h a s [ in Seibert] , in which the two-step interrogation techniq ue wa s used in a calculated w ay to unde rm ine the Mi randaw ar nin g. ” I d. ( em

pha sis a dde d) . Jus tic e K en ne dy 6 pr opos ed that [t ] he a dm iss ibi lity

of pos tw ar nin g st at em en ts s houl d c ont inu e to b e governed bythe principles of Elstad unless the delib erate two-step strategy wa s em ploy ed. If the deliberate two-step strate gy has been use d, pos tw ar

nin g st at em en ts tha t are r el at ed to the sub stanc e ofJusti c e Ke nn e dy e xpla ine d th at “ [c]ura

tiv e me a sure s sh ou ld b e de signe d to e ns ur e that a 7 rea sonable pe rson in the suspect’ s situation would understand the import and e ffe ct of the Miranda w arningand of the Miranda w aiver .” Seiber t, 542 U.S. at 622, 124 S.C t. at 2616 (Ke nnedy , J ., concur

ring ). Th e dis se nt c ri tic ize d Just ic e Ke nn e dy fo r f oc us ingon

the po lic e ’s su

bje c tiv e int e nt i n withholding Miranda

war nings. I d. at 629, 124 S. Ct. at 2620 (O’Connor, J., di ssenting) . In the dissent’s view, “[J ustice Ke nnedy ’s] approac h untethers the a naly sis from fac ts knowable to, and there fore havingany

potential direc tly

to affe ct, the suspec t.” I d. at 627, 124 S. Ct. at 2618-19. 18 prew arning statem ents m ust be excluded u nless curative m easures ar e taken before the postwar

ning statem ent is m ade. 7 Id . Th u s th e t ype o f t wo -s t ep qu es t i o n i n g th at fa l l s wi t h i n J u s t i ce Ke n n ed y’ s narrowconcurrence is the ty pe used in Seibert, where off icers in a c alculated m anner fir st obtain ed unwarned incrim inating statem ents from a suspect, and then use d th ose inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts i n th e w ar ne d in te rr ogatio n inor de r to unde rm ine the m ids tr eam Mi randaw ar

nin gs. A cc or din g to both th e plura lity and Just ic e K en ne dy , the ke y pr obl em w ith the “ que sti on- fi rs t” te ch nique or str at eg y a s e m plo y ed in Se ibe rt

is that i t pot en tia lly

r en de rs ine ff

ec tiv e the m es sa ge int en de d to be c onve y ed by the Mi randaw ar

nin gs. O nc e a de fe ndant h as inc ri m inate d hi m se lf by answ er ing a se ri es of de ta ile d qu es tio ns a

bout his inv olv em en t i n c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty and the re is little of inc ri m inatin g po te nti al le ft uns ai d, am ids tr eam

w ar nin g th at ins tr uc ts h im of his r igh t t o r ef

ra in f ro m answ er ing tho se e xa ct

kin ds o f que sti ons m ay

f ai l t o19

“ reasonably

convey that he could choo se to stop talking.” Id. at 612, 124 S. C t. at 26 10 (pl ur al it y

op in io n) . B. Gonzalez-L auzan’s Warne d St atem ents W iththi s ba ck gr ound , w e pr oc ee d to ana ly ze G onz al ez -L au zan’ s c as e. F or pur pose s of our ana ly sis , w e as sum e, but do n ot d ec ide , that the ini tia l i nte ra ct ion betwee n Gonzalez- La

uzan and the police consti tuted an interrogation and that Mi randaw ar

nin gs w er e ap pli ca

ble a t the out se t of

the m ee tin g. G ive n th at

the pol ic e did

not a sk G onz al ez -L au zan any que sti ons an d th re e tim es ins tr uc te d hi m explicitlyj ust to li sten, it is not clear that the fir st portio n of the officer s’ interview of G onz al ez -L au zan c onst itu te s an “ int er ro ga tio n” und er

I nni s. H ow ev er , on ap pe al the gov er

nm en t do es not

c ha lle nge the m ag istrate j udge ’ s r uli ng tha t the first segm ent was the “ functional equi valent” of an interrogation or that the district co urt w as c or

re ct to ex cl ude G onz al ez -L au zan’ s pr ew ar nin g st at em en t, “ okay , y ou got m e. ” Rathe r, the gov er

nm en t arg ue s th at

S ei be rt is w hol ly ina ppl ic ab le be ca

use the of fi ce rs did not a sk G onz al ez -L au zan any que sti ons in the f

ir st s eg m en t and did not de lib er at el y

use an in te rr ogatio n te ch nique de sig ne d to und er m ine the ef fe ct ive ne ss o f the Mi randaw ar nin gs b y obt ai nin g un w ar

ne d in cr im inatin g state m en ts and the n us ing the m in the w ar

ne d se gm en t i n or de r to unde rm ine the20

ef fe ct ive ne ss o f the Mi randaw ar nin gs. I nst ea d, the of

fi ce rs w ith he ld the w ar

nin gs onlyin an attem

pt to gain cre dibil ity

and establish rappo rt w ith Gonzalez- La uzan an d a lw ay s in te nde d to giv e w ar nin gs b ef or e as kin g hi m

any que sti ons. T he gove rn m en t stre sse s th at

the of fi ce rs ’ int en t no t t o e nga ge in an y pr ew ar nin g que sti oni ng i s e vid en ce d by ( 1) the inv es tig at or ’ s in tr oduc tor y a dm oni tio n, ( 2) the of fi ce rs ’ r ep eatin g th re e tim es that the y w er e not goi ng t o a sk que sti ons an d he shou ld j ust

li ste n, and ( 3) the of

fi ce rs ’ r ea din g of

the Mi randaw ar

nin gs im m ed ia te ly upo n G onz al ez -L au zan st at ing “ okay , y ou g ot m e” and w ith out f ir st pur sui ng any

que sti oni ng o r obt ai nin g any de ta il. T he gov er

nm en t arg ue s th at

the m ag istrate j udge c or

re ct ly f ound that G onz al ez -L au zan un de rs too d and w ai ve d hi s M i r a n d ar i g h t s kn o w i n g l y, f r e e l y, a n dv o l u n t a r i l y. In reply , G onzalez-L auzan em phasizes that Seibert’ s focus is not on whether que sti ons w er e ac tua lly

a ske d bu t onw he the r the re w as atw o- ste p in te rr ogatio n in whi ch th e p ol ic e d el ib erat el y wit hh el d M ira nd a warn in gs du rin g t he fir stseg m en t. G onz al ez -L au zan stre sse s th at S ei be rt is tr igg er ed

w he n atw o- ste p in te rr ogatio n is invo lved and Miranda war ning s are a

pplicable at the outs et but the pol ice m ake a deliberate decision to withhold those warnings. G onzalez-L auzan points out that on appeal the gov ernm ent does no t dispu te that the first phase w as an interrogation, that Miranda applied, and that the police intentio nally delay ed21

M i ra n d a w arn i n g s . Ac co rd i n g t o Go n za l ez -L au za n , S ei b er tco n t ro l s , t h e p o l i ce ’s tw o- ste p te ch nique und er m ine d hi s M ir an daw ar

nin gs, and h is p ostw ar

nin g statem ents are inadm issib le. W e ne ed not r es olv e thi s di sput e ove r w he the r E lst ad or S ei be rt c ontro ls, be ca use a lth oughE lst ad

is at one e xtr em e an d S ei be rt is at anothe r ex tr em e, both decisions provide im

portant gui dance. Under both decisions, the questio n here becom es whether

Gonzalez -L auzan volunt arily wa ived his Miranda rights . In answer ing th at question , E lstad relied on a presum ption that a defe ndant’s w aiver is volu ntary

in the absence of circ um stances showing ot herw ise. E lstad, 470 U. S. at 309 , 105 S . Ct . a t 12 93. I n c ontra st, the S ei be rt plura lity loo ke d m or e to whether the Miranda w arnings giv en to a rea sonable person in the susp ect’ s shoes co uld f unc tio n e ff

ec tiv el y a s M ir an dar equir es , and r equir ed am ult if ac tor te st t o de te rm ine the ir

e ff ec tiv en es s. S ei be rt , 542 U . S. a t 61 5, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 12 (plurality opini on). T he fifth vote in Seibert m ore narr owly concluded that m ids tr eam

Mi randaw ar

nin gs d id n ot f

unc tio n e ff

ec tiv el y w he n th e of

fi ce rs in a calculated w ay

first obtained war

ned statem ents, and then used them in the war

ned se gm en t t o un de rm ine the m ids tr eam w ar nin gs. I d. a t 61 8, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 14 (K en ne dy , J. , c onc ur

ri ng) . H av ing c ar ef

ull y c onsi de re d bo th d ec isi ons an d th e re co rdi n th i s ca s e, we co n cl u d e t h at th e M i ra n d a w arn i n g s i n Go n za l ez -L au za n ’s22

circum stances could and di d function effectively , that G onzalez-L auzan volu ntarily

wa ived his Miranda rights , and that Gonzalez-L auzan’ s war ned state m en ts are a dm iss ibl e unde r both E lst ad and S ei be rt . Fi rs t, the tw o- ste p in te rr ogatio n inthi s c as e, a lbe it co nti nuou s, is m at er ia lly dif fe re nt f ro m that i n S ei be rt . S ei be rt

inv olv ed atw o- ste p te ch nique a da pte d to obscure the Miranda w arnings bynot giv ing th em until after the defe ndant had co nf es se d, and the n us ing the de fe ndant’ s own in cr im inatin g st at em en ts t o pressure him

to repeat them

in the war

ned segm ent of the interrogation. In sharp co ntr as t w ithS ei be rt , the of fi ce rs a ske d no que sti ons of G onz al ez -L au zan a t a ll dur ing the f

ir st s eg m en t, nor

did G onz al ez -L au zan of

fe r an y de ta ile d in fo rm at ion co nc er nin g hi s in vol ve m en t i n T ex ido r’ s m ur de r unt il af

te r he ha d w ai ve d hi s Mi randar igh ts. Mo re ove r, dur ing the f ir st s eg m en t, the of

fi ce rs a t se ve ra l po int s tol d G onz al ez -L au zan j ust to lis te n and tha t the y

did not have any que sti ons fo r him . I nde ed , the m ag istrate j udge e xpr es sly f ound that the re w er e no thr eats o r coercion by

the police and Gonzalez- La uzan understoo d his Miranda rights. Ther e was no ho st il it y , andall pa rti es were re sp ect fu l o f eac h o th er. Acco rd in gl y , we co n cl u d e t h at th e M i ra n d a w arn i n g s d i dfu n ct i o n ef fe ct i v el y i n Go n za l ez -L au za n ’s ci rc um stanc es and tha t G onz al ez -L au zan ha s sh ow n no e rr or in the m ag istrate j udge ’ s f ind ing that he kno w ing ly and v oluntari ly

w ai ve d hi s M ir an dar igh ts.23

Se co nd, and m or e im

portantl y , e ve n a ssum ing S ei be rt c ontro ls and a

ppl y ing both the m

ultifactor test of the Seiber t plurality and Justi ce K ennedy ’ s narrow er t es t , i ti s cl ea r t h at th e M i ra n d a w arn i n g s as ad m i n i s t er edi n Go n za l ez -L au za n ’s ca se w oul d m eanin gf

ull y appr ise ar ea sona

ble sus pe ct

of his r igh t or

c hoi ce to rem ai n s il en t an d wer e th us effe ct iv e in th is cas e. W ithr es pe ct

to the S ei be rt

plura lity ’ s m

ult if ac tor te st, the f

ir st f ac tor to co nsi de r is whe the r the pr ew ar nin g qu es tio ns and answ er s w er e co m ple te and de ta ile d. I d. B ec au se G onz al ez -L au zan w as a ske d no que sti ons an d gave no an sw er s be fo re he r ec ei ve d th e Mi randaw ar nin gs, the f

ir st f ac tor str ongl y su gg es ts th atth e warn in gs were ef fect iv e. T he se co nd f

ac tor c onc er ns the de gr ee to w hic h th e de fe ndant’ s pr ew ar nin g a n dp o s t w a rn i n g s t a t e men t s o v e r l ap p e d . Gi v e n th a tGo n z a l e z - La u z a n mad e o n l y a sin gle br ie f inc ri m inatin g st at em en t i n th e pr ew ar nin g st ag e of

the int er vie w , the co m ple te int er

ro ga tio n of

G onz al ez -L au zan th at

f oll ow ed the w ar nin gs b or e little resem blance to his prewar

ning statem ent. S eibert stressed that afte r the police fi nis he d th e unw ar

ne d ph as e of

the int er ro ga tio n, “ the re w as li ttl e, if anythi ng, of inc ri m inatin g po te nti al le ft uns ai d. ” I d. a t 61 6, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 12 ( plura lity opi nio n) . I n c ontra st, the onl y state m en t G onz al ez -L au zan m ad e dur ing the unw ar ne d in te rr ogatio n w as , “ okay , y ou g ot m e. ” A ll the de ta ile d in cr im inatin g24

state m en ts G onz al ez -L au zan m ad e af te r he ha d w ai ve d hi s M ir an dar igh ts. Whil e this case invol ves a two-step interr ogation , the te chniqu e em ploy ed by the officer s dur ing the f

ir st p ha se is w hol ly

dif fe re nt f ro m that us ed in Se ibe rt . A s su ch , the second factor m entioned b y the plurality

also dem onstrates strong ly that Gonzalez Lau zan ’s po st warn in g s ta te m en ts were p ro pe rly adm it te d. T he thi rd and f ourth c onsi de ratio ns m en tio ne d by the S ei be rt

plura lity f oc us on the ti m ing and s ettin g of the tw o r ound s of

que sti oni ng. I d. a t 61 5, 124 S . Ct . at 261 2. A lth oughthe se f

ac tor s c le ar ly

f av or G onz al ez -L au zan, the y

c ar ry li ttl e w ei ght in lig ht o f the f

ac t tha t G onz al ez -L au zan w as a ske d no que sti ons an d gave no an swe rs in th e fi rs t p ha se of t he in te rv ie w. A s to the f

if th f ac tor , the c ont inu ity

of the tw o r ound s of

que sti oni ng, Se ibe rt f oc use d onw he the r it w oul d have be enunn at ur al a t the se co nd s ta ge to rep eatwhat ha d b een sai d dur in g t he fir stst ag e. Id . at 6 16 -1 7, 1 24 S. Ct. at 26 13 . In this case, because G onzalez-L auzan said very little in the first stage, there wa s virtua lly nothin g f or him to re pe at dur ing the se co nd r ound of int er ro ga tio n. T hus, it re m ai ne d ob

j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble f or him to re fu se to m ak e inc ri m inatin g statem ents during the second phase. Indeed, during th e second phase, G onzalezL au zan r ef

use d to answ er

the of fi ce rs ’ que sti ons ab out

his f athe r, de m onstratin gWe rec ognize that this Court is not bound by a plura lity

opinion. Horton v. Z ant, 941 8 F.2d 1449, 1464 n.32 ( 11th Cir. 1991) (“Plurality opinions are only

persua sive authority ; they are not binding on this Court.”); Foste r v. B d. of Sch. Commr’s of Mobile, 872 F .2d 1563, 1569 n.8 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 9) (“ A p lur a lity

op ini on is n ot b ind ingon

thi s Co ur t, a nd we are c omp e lle d to follow both our prior pr ece dent, as we ll as prior Supreme Court pr ece dent . . . .”) (interna l c it ati o n s o mi tt e d ) . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e th e r e w e r e f

o ur v o te s f o r th e p lu r a li ty o p in io n , w e an a ly

ze thi s c a se un de r b oth

the plu ra lity ’s mul tif

a c tor te st a nd un de r Jus tic e Ke nn e dy ’s na rr ow e r t e st. 25 that G onz al ez -L au zan un de rs too d th at he r et ai ne d ac hoi ce w he the r to answ er or no t. A cc or din gly , e ve n un de r the S ei be rt plura lity ’ s m

ult if ac tor te st, the pr ew ar nin g in te ra ct iondid

not r en de r the Mi randaw ar

nin gs i ne ff

ec tiv e to a reasonable suspect, and G onzalez-L auzan’ s waiver of his Miranda rights was vol unt ar y and c onst itu tio na lly

va lid . 8 A ddi tio na lly , and i m

portantl y , w e cannot

say that the tw o- ste p te ch nique emp l o yedh er e i s o f t h e t ype th at wa s th e n arro w f o cu s o f J u s t i ce Ke n n ed y’ s opin ion. H is opin ion rej ected apply ing th e plurality ’ s m ultifactor test to every tw o- sta ge int er

ro ga tio n. T he of

fi ce rs he re did

not e nga ge in the ty

pe of tw o- sta ge que sti oni ng o r str at eg y

w hic h Ju sti ce K en ne dy

c onc lud ed

dis torte d M ir an daand re qui re d M ir an daplu s c ur at ive ste ps. S ei be rt , 542 U . S. a t 62 2, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 16 (K en ne dy , J. , c onc ur

ri ng) . T he f

ir st p ha se he re did

not se ek to el ic it an y inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts a s oc curr ed in Se ibe rt , but

r athe r the of

fi ce rs r ep eate dly told Gonzalez-L auzan j ust to li sten. A lso, the office rs did not have prew arned26

incrim inating statem ents with which to cross-exam ine Gonzalez -L auzan in order to p re ssure him

to re pe at the m and the re by

und er m ine the Mi randaw ar

nin gs. N or did G onz al ez -L au zan’ s po stw ar nin g st at em en ts r el at e to the sub stanc e of his sin gle , br ie f pr ew ar

nin g st at em en t. I d. W e do n ot s ay that Ju sti ce K en ne dy ’ s te st is s at isf ie d, but r athe r w e co nc lud e that hi s te st d oe s no t a ppl y to thi s ty pe of tw oste p in te rr ogatio n. Insum m ar y , dur ing the ir

pr es en tatio n of

e vid en ce to G onz al ez -L au zan, the officer s repeatedly

inform ed Gonzalez -L auzan that he shouldj ust list en and that the y w er e not a ski ng h im

any que sti ons. B ec au se the of fi ce rs ha d y et

to as k G onz al ez -L au zan asin gle que sti on, the Mi randaw ar nin gs the y

pr ovi de d – advis ing G onz al ez -L au zan th at he ne ed not answ er que sti ons – w er e not in co ns is te nt wit h t he fir stph as e o f th e in te rv ie w wher e th ey to ldhi m jus t t o l is te n. Nothing in the rec ord sugg ests that Gonzalez- La uzan’ s waiver

of his rights was uni nf orm ed , c oe rc ed

or inv oluntary . W e co nc lud e that the m ids tr eam Mi randa warnings o ffer ed by

the officer s did no t fail to offer Gonzalez -L auzan or a reasonable suspect “ a genuine choice whether to follow up on [his ] ear lier ad m is si on .” Id . at 6 16 , 12 4 S .Ct. at 26 12 (pl ur al it y op in io n) . III . S IX TH A M EN D M EN T C LA IMSee supra note 2. 9 27 T he S ixth A m en dm en t pr ovi de s th at “ [i ] n a ll cr im ina l pr ose cu tio ns, the ac cu se d sh al l e nj oy

the r igh t . . . to ha ve the A ssi stanc e of Co unse l f

or his defence. ” G onzalez-L auzan contends that th e entire interviewby the officer s vio la te d hi s r igh t t o c ouns el be ca use the pol ic e kne wthat he w as r ep re se nte d by Rab en at t he ti m e o f th e in te rv ie w. Although Raben re presented Gonzalez -L auzan concerning his sup ervised re le as e vio la tio n ine ar ly

200 2, “ [t ] he S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t . . . is of fe nse sp eci fic .” McNei l v . W is co ns in , 50 1 U.S. 1 71 , 17 5, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 20 4, 2 20 7 (1 99 1) . As noted earlier , the m agistrate j udge m ade no finding as to whether Raben represe nted Gonzalez- La uzan at the tim e of the interview . It is doub tful that Raben repr esented Gonzalez -L auzan at that tim e, since on the sam e day Raben w as r ep re se nti ng S en ior , G onz al ez -L au zan’ s f athe r an d c o- de fe ndant, in the Te xido r m atter. 9 Re gard le ss, the e vid en ce is undi sput ed that G onz al ez -L au zan di d no t i nvok e his right to counsel du ring the entire Septem ber 18, 2002 interview. A s discuss ed ab ove , G onz al ez -L au zan’ s M ir an daw ai ve r w as kno w ing and v oluntary . A s su ch , he w ai ve d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o c ouns el and h as no i nde pe nde nt c la im on tho se gr ound s. S ee P atte rs on v . I lli noi s, 487 U . S. 285 , 296 , 108 S . Ct . 238 9, 239 728

(1 988) ( “ [A ] n a cc use d w ho i s a dm oni she d w iththe w ar nin gs p re sc ri be d by

thi s Co urt i n M ir an daha s be ensuf fi ci en tly appr ise d of

the na tur e of

his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, and o f the c onse que nc es of abandon ing tho se r igh ts, so tha t hi s wa iver on this b asis will be considered a knowing and intellig ent one.”) (internal citation om itted). IV. C ONC LUS ION W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing the sup pr es sio n of Gonzalez -L auzan’ s post warning statem ents. A ccordingly , w e af firm Gonzalez La uzan’ s convictio n and sentence. AFFIRMED.