1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra Jean Milke, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 98-60-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

FINDINGS AND ORDER

On November 28, 2006, this Court denied Petitioner’s amended habeas petition.

(Dkts. 151, 152.) In an order filed September 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

stating that “[a] complete review of the record discloses no evidence supporting a finding that

petitioner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her rights under Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966),” remanded the case and instructed this Court “to

conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the sole issue of whether petitioner validly waived

her Miranda rights.” (Dkt. 163.) The circuit court directed this Court to conduct the hearing

and make its findings within 60 days. (Id.) The Court set the hearing for November 16,

2009. (Dkt. 167.) Petitioner filed a motion with the circuit seeking a 45-day extension of

the deadline. (Dkt. 168.) The circuit granted the motion and this Court set a hearing date of

January 4, 2010. (Dkts. 168, 169.) The parties sought another extension, which the circuit

granted, and the hearing date was extended to January 11, 2010. (Dkt. 173.) Prior to the

hearing, Respondents filed a Motion to Preclude Consideration of Professor Richard Leo’s

Testimony. (Dkt. 176.) Following the hearing, the parties filed memoranda on the waiver
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The trial court found three aggravating factors: the victim was under age 15,

the murder was especially heinous or depraved, and the murder was committed in the

expectation of pecuniary gain. The latter finding was based on information concerning a life

insurance policy Petitioner had taken out on the child. The Arizona Supreme Court struck

the pecuniary gain factor, independently reweighed the aggravating and mitigating

circumstances, and affirmed the death sentence. Milke, 177 Ariz. at 126-29, 865 P.2d at 787-

90. 

2 Styers and Scott were also convicted and sentenced to death. The Arizona

Supreme Court affirmed the verdicts and sentences. State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 865 P.2d

765 (1993); State v. Scott, 177 Ariz. 131, 865 P.2d 792 (1993). The district court denied

habeas relief. Styers v. Schriro, No. 98-CV-2244-EHC, 2007 WL 86944 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10,

2007); Scott v. Schriro, No. 97-CV-1554-PGR (D. Ariz. July 5, 2005). In Styers, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding.

Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), cert. denied Ryan v.

Styers, 130 S. Ct. 379 (Oct. 5, 2009). In Scott, the court of appeals reversed in part and

ordered the district court to review the merits of claims that it had found procedurally barred.

Scott v. Schriro, 567 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), cert. denied Ryan v. Scott,

--- S. Ct. ----, 2009 WL 2823584 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2009). Neither Scott nor Schriro addressed

the issue before this Court.

- 2 -

issue. (Dkts. 190, 191, 192.)

Background

Twenty years ago, on the night of December 3, 1989, Phoenix Police Detective

Armando Saldate interrogated Petitioner in connection with the murder of her four-year-old

son, Christopher. According to Saldate, Petitioner provided incriminating information.

Petitioner was sentenced to death after a jury convicted her of first-degree murder and

conspiracy to commit first-degree murder for arranging Christopher’s killing.1

 Christopher

had been driven by co-defendants James Styers and Roger Scott to a desert wash and shot

three times in the back of the head.2

 The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Milke’s

convictions and sentences. State v. Milke, 177 Ariz. 118, 865 P.2d 779 (1993). 

In state court, at a suppression hearing and again at trial, Saldate testified that he read

Petitioner her Miranda rights, which she indicated she understood, and she then spoke with

him without invoking her rights. (Ex. 52 (RT 9/10/90 at 48-60); Ex. 55 (RT 9/12/90 at 64-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 “RT” refers to the court reporter’s transcript.

4 With respect to the contents of the interrogation, the Arizona Supreme Court

provided the following summary of Saldate’s testimony: 

[Milke] was upset with her son because he was going to turn out like his father

– in jail, an alcoholic, and a drug user. Milke said that she verbalized these

fears to Styers but did not think that he would ever hurt the child. She stated

that she was not crazy, she just did not want Christopher to grow up like his

father. She told the detective that she wanted God to take care of Christopher.

She said she thought about suicide but decided against it because Christopher

would then be in his father’s custody. She decided it would be best for

Christopher to die. She stated that she had a hard time telling Styers what she

wanted, but she finally told him, and he agreed to help. Milke and Styers

discussed the plan several times and included Scott on at least one occasion.

Ultimately, they decided that Styers and Scott would take Christopher, kill

him, and then report him missing at Metrocenter [shopping mall], but Milke

- 3 -

70).)3

 Petitioner did not testify at the suppression hearing. She presented witnesses,

however, including a jail psychologist, Dr. Kassell, who testified that Petitioner was too

distraught to understand the Miranda warnings; a criminologist who testified that Saldate’s

report was altered or fabricated; and an investigator who testified that Petitioner told him she

had asked for an attorney early in the interview. (Ex. 52 (RT 9/10/90 at 80-94, 134, 157).)

The trial judge denied the suppression motion, making the following findings:

The Court finds that the Defendant was properly Mirandized. The Court

finds that, notwithstanding the Defendant’s emotional state at the time, she

understood those rights. The Court finds that at no time did the Defendant

request an attorney, either before or after she was advised of her rights. The

Defendant was given a free choice to discuss, admit or deny or refuse to

answer questions. The Defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently

relinquished her right to counsel and her right to remain silent. She

voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made statements without any promises

being made, without there being any threats or coercion, either psychological

or physical.

(Ex. 53 (RT 9/11/90 at 32-33).)

Petitioner testified at trial that Saldate administered the Miranda advisory, which she

was too distraught to understand, and that she then asked for a lawyer. Saldate’s trial

testimony was consistent with that offered during the suppression hearing.4

 At the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was not to know how Christopher was killed.

On Saturday morning, December 2, 1989, Styers told Milke that they

were going to murder Christopher that day. They told Christopher that he was

going to see Santa Claus at Metrocenter. Milke told police that she did not

have a $5000 life insurance policy on Christopher, but her father did. She

denied that insurance money was her motivation, but admitted that it may have

been Styers’ and Scott’s because Styers knew of the policy. 

Milke, 177 Ariz. at 121, 865 P.2d at 782. This is consistent with the information contained

in Saldate’s seven-page supplemental report. (Ex. 53.)

- 4 -

conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed jury:

You must not consider any statements made by the Defendant to a law

enforcement officer unless you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the

Defendant made statements voluntarily. The Defendant’s statement is not

voluntary if it resulted from the Defendant’s will being overcome by a law

enforcement officer’s use of any sort of violence, coercion or threats or by

direct or implied promises, however slight. You must give such weight to the

Defendant’s statement as you feel it deserved under all the circumstances. 

(RT 10/11/90 at 78.)

Following her conviction, Petitioner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the

verdict. In denying the motion, the court reiterated its finding that Petitioner had not “made

a request for an attorney prior to or during her questioning by Detective Saldate.” (RT

1/18/91.)

In seeking post-conviction relief before the trial judge, Petitioner challenged the

manner in which Saldate conducted the interrogation and his account of the statements made

by Petitioner. In rejecting these allegations, the court again explained that “the trial court

made the factual determination that [Petitioner] did not ask for an attorney at the beginning

of the interview.” (Minute Entry 11/18/96 at 5.) The court further determined that Petitioner

was able to comprehend her rights. (Id. at 4.)

With respect to the issue of voluntariness, the court found that Saldate did not

overbear Petitioner’s will during the interview such that her statements were involuntary.

The court explained its ruling as follows:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

The legal standard to be employed to determine the admissibility of the

defendant’s statements made during the police interrogation is whether the will

of the defendant was overcome by coercion or threats or promises. . . . There

is no indication of any implied promise or improper influence in this case.

There is no indication the defendant was mentally impaired or hysterical to the

point of being unable to comprehend what was being said to her. 

The extent to which Ms. Milke may have felt intimidated or coerced to

make a statement to Det. Saldate was a jury question. The jury was properly

instructed on the law on this issue. . . . The jurors were told they were not to

consider any statements made by the defendant to a police officer unless they

first determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statements were made

voluntarily.

When the defendant related her version of the interview by Det. Saldate

to Dr. Kassell, her version of what was said was substantially the same as what

was in Det. Saldate’s report . When the defendant testified, she told the jury

about her interrogation by Det. Saldate. Her version of the interrogation was

not much different from the version given by Det. Saldate. The only

significant difference between Ms. Milke’s recollection of the interview and

Det. Saldate’s recollection is when and how she requested an attorney. The

defendant said she asked for an attorney at the beginning of the interview. Her

statement was, “I don’t want a tape recorder, I want an attorney.”. . . Det.

Saldate disputes that the request for an attorney was made at that time. He

says that at the conclusion of the interview, when the defendant was told she

was going to jail, she asked the detective to call her father so that he could get

an attorney for her. The trial court made the factual determination that the

defendant did not ask for an attorney at the beginning of the interview.

. . . . 

The defendant’s statements to Det. Saldate were not an unequivocal

confession of “Yes, I did it.” If Det. Saldate were to fabricate a confession he

could do a better job of making the confession concrete and less abstract.

Perhaps the most inculpatory statement Det. Saldate attributes to the defendant

is her comment that she did not want her son to grow up to be like his father

. . . . Reasonable minds could differ as to the interpretations to be given to the

statements and the conclusions that could be reached. The jury made the

determination of the reliability of the statements and the conclusions to be

reached after considering the statements.

(Minute Entry 11/18/96 at 3-7.)

Applicable Law

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court held that prior to

custodial interrogation a suspect must be informed of his right to remain silent and his right

to have an attorney present. If the suspect invokes either of these rights, interrogation must

cease. After being given his Miranda warnings, a suspect may waive his rights. The waiver
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

must be made knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 475; see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477,

482 (1981). Although the Court in Miranda characterized as “heavy” the burden of proving

a knowing and voluntary waiver, subsequently, in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168

(1986), the Court clarified that the government must prove such a waiver by a preponderance

of the evidence.

In North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a

waiver of Miranda rights need not be express, explaining that “in at least some cases waiver

can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.” Id. at 373

(explaining that an express written or oral waiver “is usually strong proof of the validity of

that waiver, but is not inevitably either necessary or sufficient to establish waiver”); see, e.g.,

Terranova v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 1990). “[T]he question of waiver

must be determined on ‘the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case,

including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.’” Id. at 374-75 (quoting

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)). Although the Court described the

prosecution’s burden as “great,” it held that a “defendant’s silence, coupled with an

understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver,” may be sufficient to

establish a waiver. Id. at 373. 

The Ninth Circuit has explained, in accordance with Butler, that “[t]o solicit a waiver

of Miranda rights, a police officer need neither use a waiver form nor ask explicitly whether

the defendant intends to waive his rights.” United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241, 1244

(9th Cir. 1997). However, “[a] waiver cannot be presumed simply from the fact that Miranda

warnings were given and a confession was eventually obtained.” United States v. Ramirez,

710 F.2d 535, 542 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475). Nonetheless, where it

is clear that the defendant acknowledged his understanding of his rights, his subsequent

answers to questions constitutes a valid implicit waiver. Id.; see United States v. Younger,

398 F.3d 1179, 1186 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the district court did not clearly err in finding that

defendant’s conduct in making a spontaneous statement and continuing to respond to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

questioning . . . constituted an implied waiver”); United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado, 399

F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Waivers of Miranda rights need not be explicit; a suspect

may impliedly waive the rights by answering an officer’s questions after receiving Miranda

warnings.”) (citing Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1179-80); see also United States v. Adams, 583

F.3d 457, 467-68 (6th Cir. 2009) (valid waiver where defendant was read his rights, indicated

he understood them, and continued talking with officer); United States v. Binion, 570 F.3d

1034, 1041 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Since Binion had been informed of his rights and had neither

invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege nor requested an attorney, his decision to volunteer

an incriminating response was an intelligent waiver of that right.”); United States v. Nichols,

512 F.3d 789, 798 (6th Cir. 2008) (“One such case where waiver may be clearly inferred is

when a defendant, after being properly informed of his rights and indicating that he

understands them, nevertheless does nothing to invoke those rights.”); United States v.

Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 389-90 (4th Cir. 2005) (“Because [the defendant] had been fully

informed and indicated his understanding of his Miranda rights, his willingness to answer

[the officer]’s question is as clear an indicia of his implied waiver of his right to remain silent

as we can imagine.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Boon San Chong, 829 F.2d 1572,

1574 (11th Cir. 1987) (“if after being advised of his rights an individual responds willingly

to questions without requesting an attorney, waiver may be implied”). Moreover, in Davis

v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 460 (1994), the Supreme Court held that officers who have

given Miranda warnings may continue to question a defendant even when a request for

counsel is equivocal, a holding that also necessarily applies when the defendant makes no

request for counsel at all.

Courts consider the dynamics of the interview when determining whether a defendant

impliedly waived his Miranda rights. In Bui v. DiPaolo, 170 F.3d 232, 238-41 (1st Cir.

1999), the First Circuit, reviewing relevant case law, noted that “courts regularly have found

waivers” “if a defendant’s incriminating statements were made either as part of a ‘steady

stream’ of speech, Bradley v. Meachum, 918 F.2d 338, 342 (2d Cir. 1990), or as part of a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 Saldate retired in 1990. He is now the elected constable for the Encanto Justice

Precinct. (RT 1/11/10 at 9.)

- 8 -

back-and-forth conversation with the police, Baskin v. Clark, 956 F.2d 142, 146 (7th Cir.

1992).” On the other hand, a defendant’s silence in the face of repeated questions is

indicative of a lack of waiver. United States v. Wallace, 848 F.2d 1464, 1475 (9th Cir.

1988). In Thomkins v. Berghuis, 547 F.3d 572, 587-588 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 130

S. Ct. 48 (U.S. September 30, 2009) (No. 08-1470), no waiver was found where there was

no back and forth conversation during the two hour and 45 minute interview, which consisted

of the officer engaging in a monologue while the defendant remained mostly silent.

Evidentiary Hearing

The evidentiary hearing testimony of Petitioner and Saldate mirrors the testimony they

provided in state court. This Court is faced, as the state court was 20 years ago, with two

versions of the interrogation, presented under oath by its principals. While the versions

conflict at several key points, at many other points they converge. The following facts are

not in dispute.

The day after her son was reported missing, Petitioner was asleep at her father’s house

in Florence, Arizona, when sheriff’s deputies arrived. (RT 1/11/10 at 132-33.) Upon being

awakened by her stepsister and informed of the deputies’ presence, she replied, “What the

fuck do they want?” (RT 1/12/10 at 25.) The deputies asked Petitioner to come to the

sheriff’s office to be interviewed by Phoenix detectives. (RT 1/11/10 at 133.) She drove

there with a family friend. (Id.)

Detective Saldate was a 22-year law enforcement veteran, with 15 years as a

detective.5

 (Id. at 8.) He had been involved in approximately 300 homicide cases. (Id. at

10.) Saldate was disciplined for misconduct in 1973. (Id. at 12, 112; Ex. 18.) He also

received several commendations for his work as a police officer and detective. (Id. at 12.)

Saldate first interviewed co-defendants Styers and Scott in Phoenix; only Scott

provided inculpatory information. (Id. at 50-62.) Scott then led Saldate to Christopher’s
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 Saldate characterized his encounter with Petitioner as an “interview.” (See RT

1/11/10 at 17, 44-48.) This was a reference to what he described as his conversational, nonconfrontational style. (Id. at 17, 45.) According to the definition set forth in the Phoenix

Police Department’s General Investigative Procedures, however, Saldate’s meeting with

Petitioner was an “interrogation” because Petitioner was a suspect rather than a victim or

witness. (Id.; see Ex. 19 at 921.) The Court will use the term “interrogation” to refer to the

encounter between Saldate and Petitioner.

- 9 -

body and provided information implicating Petitioner. (Id. at 63-64.) Thereafter Saldate

traveled to Florence to interrogate Petitioner.6

 (Id. at 64-74.)

The interrogation took place in Florence at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office in a 15-

by-15 room containing a desk and two chairs. (RT 1/11/10 at 65, 134.) Petitioner was

waiting in the room with her friend. (Id. at 19, 133.) Saldate entered, introduced himself,

asked Petitioner’s companion to leave, and shut the door. (Id. at 19, 139.) He informed

Petitioner that her son had been found, that he had been murdered, and that she was under

arrest. (Id. at 20, 140.) Petitioner shouted “What, what” and began crying. (Id. at 20, 140.)

Saldate stated that he would not tolerate her crying. (Id. at 81, 140.) He then removed a card

from his badge case and recited the Miranda advisory. (Id. at 20, 140-41.) He asked

Petitioner if she understood her rights but did not ask her if she waived those rights. (Id. at

24, 142.) Saldate, having been requested by a supervisor to tape-record the interrogation,

asked Petitioner if she wanted the interrogation to be recorded. (Id. at 17-18, 142.)

Petitioner did not want it recorded. (Id.) Saldate did not bring a tape-recorder with him to

the interrogation but could have obtained one at the sheriff’s office. (Id. at 18-19.)

Saldate placed his chair within six to 12 inches of Petitioner. (Id. at 79-80, 145, 147.)

He told her he wouldn’t tolerate any lies and was there to get the truth. (Id. at 92, 148.)

Petitioner did most of the talking during the interrogation, with Saldate mainly listening. (Id.

at 173-74.) Petitioner told Saldate that she was not “crazy” or an “animal.” (Id. at 152.) She

also provided information about her background, portraying herself in a positive light to

show she was not the kind of person who would commit such a crime. (Id. at 154-55.) She

told Saldate that she did not want her son to grow up to be like his father, a person who
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 The procedures require only that “[w]hen officers tape record an interrogation

or interview with a suspect . . . the tapes must be preserved for trial.” (Ex. 19 at 933.) They

also instruct officers to “[d]ocument everything said by the suspect. He may contradict

himself which will help impeach his testimony later.” (Id. at 921.)

- 10 -

abused drugs and got into legal trouble. (Id. at 151.) Saldate took handwritten notes during

the interrogation. (Id. at 101, 173.) Petitioner never invoked her right to remain silent and

made no request that the interrogation cease. (Id. at 153, 178.) The interrogation lasted

about 30 minutes. (Id. at 27, 152.) After the interrogation, Saldate drove Petitioner, whom

he did not handcuff, from Florence to Phoenix. (Id. at 33-34, 156.) While she was being

transported, Petitioner asked Saldate to call her father to see if he could get an attorney for

her. (Id.)

The interrogation was not recorded. (Id. at 17.) Saldate did not obtain a signed

waiver or acknowledgment of rights, nor did he subsequently corroborate the confession with

another officer. (Id. at 101, 161-62.) He destroyed his handwritten notes after preparing a

supplemental report. (Id. at 102.)

The record is also undisputed with respect to the contents of the Miranda card Saldate

read to Petitioner prior to the interrogation. The card contained the four Miranda rights and

a single follow-up question: “DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE RIGHTS?” (Ex. 51.) The

card did not contain a second question asking whether the suspect waives his rights. (Id.)

Pursuant to the Phoenix Police Department’s General Investigative Procedures, “Admonition

of rights will be read verbatim from the Notification of Rights card distributed by the

department.” (Ex. 19 at 930.) The card included spaces for the case number and the officer’s

signature, but not a space for the suspect’s signature. (Ex. 51.) 

It is further undisputed that in 1989 there was no requirement, under the policies and

procedures of the Phoenix Police Department, that interrogations be recorded or that officers

obtain a signed waiver. (See RT 1/11/10 at 24-26; RT 1/12/10 at 116, 119.)7

Saldate’s version of the interrogation

Saldate testified that after reading the Miranda warning he asked Petitioner if she
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

understood her rights. (RT 1/11/10 at 22-23.) She nodded. (Id. at 24.) Saldate told her he

needed a verbal confirmation that she understood her rights. (Id.) She said yes. (Id.) He

then asked if he could tape record the interrogation. (Id. at 18, 115.) She said no. (Id.) 

Saldate testified that he had no reason to believe that Petitioner did not understand her

rights. (Id. at 26.) She appeared very intelligent. (Id. at 29.) Petitioner was upset and crying

early in the interrogation, although Saldate believed she was feigning her emotional reaction

in an attempt to manipulate the interrogation. (Id. at 26-27.) Thereafter they had a “very

composed conversation.” (Id.) During the interrogation, Petitioner never asked questions

about her son or denied involvement in his murder. (Id. at 27, 29.) Saldate did not threaten

or strike Petitioner or make any promises. (Id. at 29.) He testified that Petitioner never asked

for an attorney. (Id.) If she had, Saldate would have noted it and included the information

in his supplemental report. (Id.) He had done so in other cases, including cases where he

continued to converse with suspects even after they had invoked their right to remain silent

or their right to an attorney. (Id. at 29-31, 118-19; see Exs. 10, 11, 12.) In some of these

cases evidence was suppressed as a result of Saldate’s conduct during the interrogations. (Id.

at 105-11; see Exs. 8, 11.) 

Petitioner’s version of the interrogation

Petitioner testified that when Saldate administered the Miranda advisory, she

responded, “Why are you doing this?” (id. at 141), by which she meant, “Why are you

reading me my rights?” (id. at 164). When Saldate asked if she understood her rights, she

replied, “No. I’ve never been in trouble before. I never had my rights read to me before.”

(Id. at 142.) When asked if she wanted the interview recorded, she replied, “No, I need a

lawyer.” (Id. at 142-43.) It was unclear from Petitioner’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing

whether this statement was intended to convey both a request for counsel and a refusal to

have the interrogation recorded. (Id.) 

Petitioner testified that although she heard Saldate read the Miranda advisory – i.e.,

she heard Saldate inform her that she had the right to an attorney and the right to remain
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

silent – she did not fully comprehend those rights because she was too upset at hearing the

news of her son’s death and being told she was under arrest; she was in “shock” and

“reeling.” (Id. at 141, 149, 170, 176-78.) She testified, however, that she understood her

rights sufficiently to ask for an attorney (id. at 172) and was aware that she was being

informed of her rights because she had been arrested (id. at 164). 

Petitioner believed she could not invoke her right to remain silent, given that Saldate

had ignored her request for an attorney. (Id. at 143-44, 153.) She testified repeatedly that

Saldate “badgered” her and was “in her face” throughout the interrogation so that she felt

“psychologically threatened.” (Id. at 153, 168, 179.) She conceded that she spoke positively

about her background, mentioning that she was popular in high school and nearly a straightA student, but only in order to defend herself. (Id. at 154.) She denied any involvement in

her son’s murder. (Id. at 149.) Soon after the interrogation, when she arrived in Phoenix,

Petitioner encountered a journalist named Paul Huebl. (Id. at 157-58.) In response to his

questions, Petitioner denied that she had confessed to the crime or that she had been

motivated by insurance proceeds. (Id. at 158.) She also asked Huebl, “When can I talk to

a lawyer.” (Id. at 167.)

Petitioner acknowledged that, although she had never been arrested before, she had

had previous interactions with the police, when officers raided her home in connection with

her then-husband’s drug use. (Id. at 165-66.) Prior to her arrest she was aware of what

Miranda rights were. (Id. at 166.) Petitioner testified that she considered herself smart; she

achieved a 3.9 grade point average in high school and was a member of the Spanish Honor

Society. (Id. at 171.) Petitioner had pursued restraining orders against her ex-husband. (Id.

at 150.) She acknowledged having previously lied under oath, falsely testifying that she had

not been abused by her ex-husband. (Id. at 175.)

Paul Huebl

Paul Huebl, a private investigator and journalist, interviewed Petitioner for a

television station in the hours after her arrest and interrogation. Huebl testified that during
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

the interview Petitioner expressed shock when he informed her of the rumors that she had

confessed to the crime and was motivated by insurance money. (RT 1/12/10 at 9-11.) She

denied any involvement in her son’s murder. (Id.) According to Huebl, Petitioner also told

him she had asked for a lawyer but hadn’t seen one yet; she asked Huebl how she could get

a lawyer. (Id. at 11.) She did not indicate when she had asked for a lawyer. (Id. at 27.) At

the time of the interview, Petitioner appeared “sober” and “sane.” (Id. at 32.)

On cross-examination Huebl acknowledged that he maintains a website on which he

has written and posted articles advocating Petitioner’s innocence. (Id. at 33-37.) He believes

she did not commit the murder because at the time she had a new boyfriend and a job at an

insurance agency. (Id. at 36.)

Richard Leo

As indicated above, Respondents move the Court to preclude consideration of Dr.

Richard Leo’s testimony. (Dkt. 176.) The motion is denied. The Court will consider the

testimony in a manner consistent with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the

extent that it is relevant to the factual issues before the Court. 

Dr. Leo, currently an associate professor of law at the University of San Francisco,

formerly a professor of criminology, psychology, and sociology at the University of

California–Irvine and the University of Colorado, testified on Petitioner’s behalf. (Id. at 48-

49; Ex. 4.) His field of expertise includes “police interrogation and investigation, the

psychology and practices, Miranda requirements and how Miranda plays out in practice,

false confessions and wrongful convictions.” (Id. at 51.) The bulk of his research on such

issues has involved California cases; Arizona cases have constituted perhaps two to 10

percent of his research. (Id. at 118.) Professor Leo has testified in court 186 or 187 times,

in all but one case on behalf of the defense. (Id. at 81-82.) 

Professor Leo was initially retained by Petitioner’s habeas counsel in these

proceedings to render an opinion on “the quality of interrogation practices used by Detective

Saldate and whether they likely resulted in a fabricated or false confession from Debra
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

Milke.” (Ex. 5 at 5; see RT 1/12/10 at 52-53.) In his report, dated April 19, 2002, Professor

Leo concluded that Saldate’s interview techniques were unprofessional, his version of the

interview was implausible, and it was possible he had fabricated a confession. (Ex. 5 at 10-

11.) Professor Leo also wrote that the manner in which Detective Saldate stated he obtained

a Miranda waiver from Petitioner was “troubling, if not illegal” and that Petitioner alleged

that Saldate had “bullied” her into waiving her rights. (RT 1/12/10 at 57; Ex. 5 at 7.)

However, on appeal from this Court’s denial of habeas relief, the issue apparently became

whether or not Petitioner validly waived her Miranda rights. Petitioner again retained

Professor Leo. In support of the issue as it is now presented, Professor Leo has prepared a

supplemental report in which he corrects his original report to indicate that there was no

Miranda waiver. (RT 1/12/10 at 54, 57; Ex. 6 at 7-8. ) Professor Leo has never interviewed

Petitioner or Saldate. (Id. at 85-86.)

During his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Professor Leo acknowledged that he

typically does not testify on the issue of Miranda waivers as opposed to “interrogation

practices, the techniques, the psychology of interrogations and issues having to do with

coercion and reliability and false confessions.” (Id. at 107.) Professor Leo offered no

opinion as to whether Petitioner could or did understand the Miranda warnings. (Id. at 83.)

He did note that the warnings are “pitched” at eighth or ninth grade reading level. (Id. at 83.)

With respect to the legal question before this Court, Professor Leo testified that the

state can never meet its “heavy burden” of proving an implied Miranda waiver when the

interrogation is not recorded or otherwise memorialized and when the suspect and the

interrogator provide conflicting versions of what transpired. (Id. at 124-25.) Professor Leo

stated that these factors are compounded when the participants offer widely divergent reports

of the details of the interrogation. (Id. at 133.) According to Professor Leo, such a case

constitutes a mere “swearing contest” which by its nature is insufficient to support the heavy

burden of establishing a waiver. (Id. at 108-09.) Professor Leo did not mention in his

testimony that the appropriate standard for determining a Miranda waiver is by
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 It is not clear whether the Court of Appeals, in remanding this case for an

evidentiary hearing, determined that Petitioner had properly raised the waiver issue before

this Court in her habeas petition.

- 15 -

preponderance of the evidence.

After testifying that there was no evidence supporting the existence of an implied

waiver in Petitioner’s case, Professor Leo conceded that Saldate’s testimony “technically”

constituted such evidence. (Id. at 106.) He opined, however, that Saldate’s version of the

interrogation was “wildly implausible and contradictory and make[s] no sense in light of how

police are trained to and observed to give Miranda warnings and conduct their

interrogations.” (Id. at 77; see id. at 111.) Nevertheless, Professor Leo conceded that some

of the features he found incredible in Saldate’s account of the interview – asking if Petitioner

wanted the interrogation taped, listening to Petitioner rather than asking questions – were

corroborated by Petitioner’s own testimony. (See id. at 77, 93-94, 111-12.) 

Discussion

Standard of review

The Court has been directed to determine whether Petitioner validly waived her

Miranda rights. In her habeas petition Petitioner alleged that her rights were violated during

the interview with Saldate because he used coercive techniques, ignored her invocation of

her right to an attorney, and inaccurately reported her responses. (Dkt. 98 at 21-52.) Before

this Court, Petitioner did not directly address the issue of waiver or argue that a waiver could

not be implied from the circumstances of the interrogation. However, following oral

argument on appeal, the circuit court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the

following questions: “What evidence is required to prove that a defendant’s waiver of rights

under Miranda . . . was made ‘voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently’ . . . and is that burden

met in this case?”8

 Milke v. Schriro, No. 07-99001 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2008). Had these issues

been raised in the amended habeas petition, this Court would have applied the deferential

standards set forth in the AEDPA to the state court’s ruling that Petitioner knowingly and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d), a petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on any claim “adjudicated on

the merits” by the state court unless that adjudication:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

- 16 -

voluntarily waived her Miranda rights.9

 Moreover, the state court’s factual determination

that Petitioner understood her rights and did not invoke her right to an attorney would have

been entitled to a presumption of correctness, which Petitioner would have been obliged to

rebut by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Henderson v. DeTella,

97 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The state court’s historical findings as to the petitioner’s

knowledge, understanding, and determination to forgo his Miranda rights are, consequently,

entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).”); Everett v. Barnett,

162 F.3d 498, 500-01 (7th Cir. 1998).

Given the posture of the case and the directive from the Court of Appeals, it appears

that this Court is being instructed to make its findings based on an independent review of the

evidence, without regard to the state court’s rulings. In doing so, the Court must assess the

witnesses’ relative credibility and the plausibility of their conflicting accounts.

“Frequently, . . . the state and the petitioner offer conflicting testimony as to whether

the petitioner was apprised of and willingly relinquished his rights; assessing the Miranda

waiver thus demands credibility assessments that typically only the trier of fact can make.”

Henderson, 97 F.3d at 946; cf. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 117 (1985) (“Of course,

subsidiary questions, such as the length and circumstances of the interrogation, the

defendant’s prior experience with the legal process, and familiarity with the Miranda

warnings, often require the resolution of conflicting testimony of police and defendant.”).

Thus, notwithstanding Petitioner’s arguments and Professor Leo’s opinion to the contrary,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

there are cases in which courts have found a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the

evidence based on the conflicting testimony of suspects and officers. See, e.g., United States

v. Gaines, 295 F.3d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 2002) (“While it would be preferable to have physical

evidence supporting [Detective] Williams’ testimony, such as Gaines’ signature of

acknowledgment [that he received and understood his Miranda rights]. . . defendant points

to no evidence that would establish clear error on the part of the district court in choosing to

credit Williams’ testimony over Gaines’.”); United States v. Doe, 149 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir.

1998) (affirming credibility findings of district court, which “relied more on the overall

plausibility of the competing accounts than on the demeanor of the witnesses,” which “was

equally good on both sides”); United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268, 1278 (9th Cir.

1988) (affirming denial of suppression motion where district judge, “presented with

conflicting facts, credited the testimony” of FBI agents).

Other rulings also belie the premise that in cases such as Petitioner’s a valid waiver

cannot be found. In United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir. 1998), the

defendant moved to suppress her statement on the grounds that the officer made threats and

promises during a period when the tape recorder was turned off. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

the district court’s denial of the motion, explaining that the defendant “present[ed] little

evidence – other than her own allegations – to suggest that her statements were involuntary.”

Id. In United States v. Dagnan, 293 Fed. Appx. 205, 206-207, 2008 WL 4280024 (4th Cir.

2008), a police officer testified before the district court that he gave Miranda warnings to the

defendant, while the defendant testified that no warnings were given. Id. at 206. The court

credited the officer’s testimony, despite the fact that the defendant was never asked to sign

a Miranda waiver and the officer did not have his Miranda card with him, which he said he

always used in giving warnings to suspects. Id. The Fourth Circuit held that the defendant

provided no reason to overturn the lower court’s credibility assessment, explaining that “[t]he

district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, listen to their testimony, and was

in the best position to make the credibility finding.” Id. at 207. In United States v.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

Montalvo-Ortiz, 983 F. Supp. 78, 81 (D. Puerto Rico 1997), officers testified that the

defendant signed a Miranda waiver form, which they subsequently lost, while the defendant

testified that he did not sign a form and had requested an attorney. The district court

concluded, “After evaluating the testimony of the defendant and the three agents, including

their responsiveness and their demeanor on the stand, the Court, using the preponderance of

the evidence standard, finds the account of the agents to be more credible.” Id. In United

States v. Mazuera, 756 F. Supp. 564, 569 (S. D. Fla. 1991), the court was “confronted with

highly conflicting testimony” on the issue of a Miranda waiver. Nevertheless, the court

found that the government had met its burden based on the more credible version of events

testified to by the experienced law enforcement officers. Id.

The Court therefore rejects Petitioner’s contention that as a matter of law Respondents

cannot prove, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the existence of a valid

Miranda waiver based on the conflicting testimony of Saldate and Petitioner.

Findings

In Petitioner’s case, the record unequivocally shows that there was no express waiver,

written or oral. Therefore, the Court must determine, applying the law set forth above to the

facts elicited at the evidentiary hearing, whether a valid implied waiver can be found. The

Court concludes that Respondents have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

Petitioner waived her Miranda rights. This conclusion is based on the following findings.

(1) Saldate advised Petitioner of her Miranda rights and asked her if she understood

them. In doing so, Saldate followed Phoenix police procedures. He read, verbatim, the

Miranda advisory, which listed four rights and one follow-up question. He documented

Petitioner’s statements in his contemporaneous, hand-written notes and then in his

supplemental report.

(2) Petitioner acknowledged that she understood her rights, first by nodding

affirmatively and then, when asked to supply a verbal answer, by stating yes. There was no

evidence that Petitioner was incapable of comprehending her rights, and only her self-serving
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 19 -

testimony suggested that she did not understand them when they were recited by Saldate.

Petitioner was 25 years old at the time of the interrogation. She was employed at an

insurance agency. In high school she achieved a 3.9 GPA. She had had prior encounters

with the police and the court system. 

(3) Petitioner did not invoke her right to counsel or her right to remain silent. There

is no contention that she invoked her right to remain silent. As described below, the Court’s

determination that Petitioner did not invoke her right to an attorney is based on the Court’s

assessment of the relative credibility of Petitioner and Saldate and their versions of the

interrogation.

(4) The circumstances of the subsequent interrogation support a finding that

Petitioner waived her Miranda rights. Petitioner chose not to have the interrogation

recorded. She exhibited no unwillingness to answer questions or provide information. She

did not remain silent or ask to terminate the interview. Instead, Petitioner spoke freely about

a range of topics, seeking to explain and justify her actions. According to her own testimony,

which was consistent with Saldate’s, Petitioner dominated the conversation with her attempts

to explain and defend herself. 

(5) Petitioner’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing before this Court was

inconsistent and self-serving. She stated that Saldate “badgered” her and was “in her face”

throughout the 30-minute interrogation. However, she acknowledged that she did most of

the talking during the interrogation, providing Saldate with a variety of information and

confiding details about her personal life and background. During the period when Saldate

was allegedly badgering Petitioner and in her face, he was listening to her story and taking

notes.

At the conclusion of the interrogation, while being transported from Florence to

Phoenix, Petitioner asked Saldate to call her father to see if he would get her a lawyer. This

is not consistent with her testimony that because Saldate failed to honor her initial request

for an attorney, she felt psychologically threatened by him and was convinced he would
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 20 -

ignore any further requests for counsel. Petitioner also testified that she was in shock and

could not understand her Miranda rights, yet she was already familiar with those rights, she

asked Saldate why he was reading her the rights, and, according to Petitioner, she

immediately invoked her right to counsel. Petitioner’s claim to have been in a state of shock

during the interrogation is also inconsistent with her ability to vividly recall its details. 

The Court further notes that Petitioner’s demeanor on the stand did not enhance her

credibility but instead emphasized the self-serving nature of her testimony. Rather than

detailing her version of the facts of the interrogation, Petitioner’s responses appeared

rehearsed and formulated to support her legal arguments. 

By contrast, the credibility of Saldate’s testimony is supported by several factors. As

already noted, there are many similarities in the two accounts. The key differences pertain

to details of the interrogation which are incriminating or detrimental to Petitioner’s claim of

a Miranda violation. In addition, the details Saldate provided with respect to the content of

the interrogation lends credibility to his testimony that Petitioner did not request an attorney.

Saldate did not report that Petitioner gave a straight-forward confession of guilt as to her role

in her son’s murder, as he could have done if he were fabricating his account of the

interrogation. Instead, he reported that Petitioner offered a series of justifications for her

conduct and attempted to portray herself in a positive light. It is simply not plausible that

Saldate concocted this information, particularly since much of it was corroborated by

Petitioner’s version of the interrogation. The credibility of this aspect of Saldate’s account

supports a conclusion that he also accurately reported Petitioner’s failure to request an

attorney.

In addition, it was Saldate’s practice to note in his reports if a suspect invoked his

right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. The fact that his report in this case does not

contain such a notation supports his testimony that Petitioner did not ask for an attorney at

the outset of the interrogation. 

Finally, although this Court’s credibility assessments have been made independently,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 21 -

based on the record and the evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing, the Court notes

that they are consistent with those rendered by the state court which on three occasions

rejected Petitioner’s account of the interrogation, finding that Petitioner understood her

Miranda rights and did not invoke her right to an attorney. 

Conclusion

Respondents have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her Miranda rights during her interrogation

by Detective Saldate.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Respondent’s Motion to Preclude

Consideration of Professor Richard Leo’s Testimony (Dkt. 176).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this

Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forthwith.

Dated this 29th day of January , 2010 .