I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - KA- 0 0 7 2 2 - S CT J UST I N H AYNES
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 02/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. C
. E
. M O R G A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ATT ALA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: EDWA RD C. F ENWI CK AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J OS E BE NJ AM I N S I M O DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: DOUG E VANS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 08/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A ft eran A t t al a C ount y gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed s i xt een- y ear - ol d J us t i n H aynes on char ges of m ur der , s exual bat t ery , and ar s on, venue w as t r ans ferr ed t o R anki n C ount y . H aynes w as tried a n d f

o u n d g u iltyo f

m u rd e r, se x u a l b a ttery, a n d f irst d e g re e a rso n , an d se n ten c e d to
cons ecut i ve s ent ence s of l i fe f orm ur der , t hi r t yy ear s fors exual bat t ery , and tw entyy ear s for fi r s tdegr ee a r s on. H aynes s ubs equent l yfi l ed a m ot i on for a new t r i al , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, ju d g m e n t n o t w ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t, w h ic h m o tio n s w e re d e n ie d
. ¶2. A ggr i eved, H aynes appea l s t o t hi s C our t , cont endi ng ( 1) t he cour t err ed i n changi ng venue t o R anki n C ount yand i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o quas h t he veni r e, w hi ch w as composed

### 2

of onl yt w el ve per centA fr i can- A m er i can j ur or s i n a county w it h a sevent een pe r cent A fr i can- A m er i can popul at i on; ( 2) t he cour t err ed i n fai l i ng t o s uppr es s H aynes ’ confe s s i on to law enfo rcem ent off

i cers aft er he i nv ok ed hi s ri gh t t o coun sel ; and (3) t he evi den c e d id
n o t s u p p o rt th e ju d g m e n t. FACTS ¶3. I n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s of February 9, 2004, a new s paperdel i veryw om an r epor t ed a hous e on fi r e on Sout h H unt i ngt on St r eeti n K os ci usk o , M issi s s i ppi
. K os ci us ko Pol i ce O ff icer C arl B lack an d K o sciu sk o F ir ef igh ter M ark H il l, w ere so m e o f the f ir st r esp o n d ers t o arr i ve att he hous e. O ffi cerB l ack t es t i fi ed s m oke w as or i gi nat i ng from the r earof t he hous e, a n d t h a th e n o t i c e d wi n d o w s c r e e n s l o c a t e d o n t h e b a c k o f t h e h o me h a d been
rem ov ed, as w el l as a broken w i nd ow pan e l ocated i n the back do or. O ffi cer B lac k al so t es t i fi ed thathe found a not e i n t he dr i vew ay w hi ch r ead, “[d] o not s ayanyt hi ng unl es s t he not e t el l s y ou. Shake y our head y es w hen y ou fi ni s h r eadi ng t hi s not e. ” A ft erext i ngui s hi ng th e f ire , H ill a n d o th e r o f

f icia ls d isc o v e re d th e b o d yo f f if ty -n in e -y e a r-o ld Je a n e tte N o w e ll, a par apl egi c, l y i ng on herbed. E ven though s l as h w ounds w er e found on N ow el l ’ s neck, t he p a th o lo g is t lis te d N o w e ll’ s p ri m a ry c a u s e o f d e a th a s s m o k e in h a la tio n . ¶4
. L ater that m o rnin g , K o sciu sk o P o li ce O ff icer M att S teed w as e ati n g at a M cD o n ald’s
r es t aur ant w h en H aynes , a M cD onal d’ s empl oy ee, appr oache d hi m and s ai d t hathe knew “w ho ki l l ed thatl adyl as t ni ght
. ” O ffi cer St eed t es t i fi ed t hat H aynes t ol d hi m t hatB arr yL ove
w as r es pons i bl e and then H aynes des cr i bed i n det ai l how L ove br oke i nt o t he hous e and

### 3

k ill e d N o w e ll. P o lice in v e stig a to r C u rtis P o p e tes tifie d H a yn e s re p e a ted th e sa m e sto ryto hi m , and thatH aynes s ubs equent l yconfe s s ed thathe, notL ove, com m it ted t he cr i m e. Phy s i cal evi dence found att he cri m e s cene , i ncl udi ng fi ngerpr i nt s and s emi nal fl ui d,
corr obor at ed H aynes ’ confe s s i on. DI S CU S S I ON I . W HETH ER THE CO URT ERRED I N CH ANG I NG VENUE TO RAN KI N CO UNTY A ND I N DENY I NG HA YNES’ M OTI ON TO QU ASH THE VENI RE. ¶ 5
. H a yn e s f

i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o R a n k i n C o u n t y,
a c o u n t y whe r e b l a c k c i t i z e n s c o n s t i tu t e o n l y s e v e n t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e d e mog r a phi c, as compar ed t o A t t al a C ount y , w hos e bl ack ci t i zens m ake up for t yper centof t he demogr aphi c. I ns t ead, H aynes ar gues hi s t r i al s h o u ld h ave be en moved t o a countyw i t h s i m i l arr aci al d e m o g ra p h ic s a s A tta la C o u n ty. ¶ 6
. H o w e v e r, “a d e f e n d a n t h a s n o rig h t to a c h a n g e o f v e n u e to a ju risd ictio n w ith c e rta in
r aci al demogra phi cs . ” Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 886 So. 2 d 7 04, 709 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng De La B e c k w ith v . S ta te , 7 0 7 S o . 2 d 5 4 7 , 5 9 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 )); s ee al s o S im o n v . S ta te , 633 So. 2d 4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 3 ), vacat ed on othergr ounds , 513 U
. S. 956, 115 S. C t . 413, 130 L
. E d. 2 d 3 2 9 (1 9 9 4 ), on r em and , 679 So. 2d 617 ( M i s s . 1996)
. Fur t her m or e, “[m]ot i ons forchange of venue are left to the t r i al cour t ’ s s ound di s cr et i on. ” S w a n n v . S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1111, 1116 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 7 6 7 S o . 2 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); H ick so n v . S ta te , 7 0 7 S o . 2 d 5 3 6 , 5 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )).

### 4

¶7
. H ere , the circu it jud g e m o v ed the tr ial to R an k in C o u n ty , a f te r c o n s id ering fa ctors
s u c h a s w h e r e H a y n e s c o u l d o b t a i n a f a i ra n d i m p a r t i a l t r i a l , a w a y f r o m p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y. T h e c i r c u i t j u d g e a l s o c o n s i d e r e d c o u r t h o u s e f a c i l i t i e s , p r o x i m i t y f

r o m t h e t r a n s f

e r o rc o u n t y, and the l ocat i on of w i t nes s es . B as ed on Mitch e ll and the tr i al j udge’ s fi ndi ngs , w e fi nd no
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . ¶8. H aynes al s o ar gues t hatt he ci r cui tj udge i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o quas h t he

v e nir e w hich w as on l y t w el ve percent black, w hen R ank i n C ou nty ’s dem og raph ic is
sev en teen p erc e n t b lack
. In o rde r t o sh o w a v iolati o n o f th e righ t t o an im p arti al j u ry
r epr es ent i ng a fa i rcr os s - s ect i on of t he comm uni t y , a defe ndantm us ts how “( 1) t hatt he gr oup al l eged t o be excl uded i s a “di s t i nct i ve” gr oup i n t he comm uni t y ; ( 2) t hatt he r epr es ent at i on of t hi s gr oup i n veni r es fr om w hi ch j ur i es ar e s el ect ed i s notfai rand r eas onabl e i n r el at i on t o t he number of s uch per s ons i n t he com m uni t y ; and ( 3) t hatt hi s underr epr es ent at i on i s due t o s y s t emat i c exc l us i on of t he gr oup i n t he j ur y - s el ect i on pr oces s . ” G ra y v . S ta te , 887 So. 2d 158, 165 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng L a n ier v . S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ))
. ¶9. H er e, t he veni r e fr om w hi ch t he j ur yw as s el ect ed w as pr oduced bya comput er w hi ch
r andoml ys el ect ed names fr om t he vot er r ol l s of R anki n C ount y . H aynes m ade no obj ect i on t o t he sel ect i on pr oces s , nordi d he pr es entanyevi dence i ndi cat i ng s y s t emat i c exc l us i on of bl acks i n t he j ur y - s el ect i on pr oces s . A s t he ci r cui t j udge not ed, H aynes obj ect ed onl y t o t he
res ult s of t he sel ect i on process, no tt he m ann er i n w hich t he ju ry w as draw n. B ecause

### 5

H a yn e s h a s f

a iled to m a k e a sh o w in g o f a n y o f th e p rim a f a c ie e lem e n ts, th is C o u rt f in d s th is
a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W HETH ER THE C OU RT ERRED W HEN I T FAI LED TO S UP P RE S S HAYNE S ’ M ARCH 3 , 2 0 0 4 , CONF ES S I ON W HI CH W AS M ADE AFTER HA YNES I NV O K ED HI S RI GH T TO CO UNSEL . A . C onf es s i on ¶10. O n February 9 , 2 0 0 4 , H aynes w as arr es t ed forN ow el l ’ s m ur der
. D ur i ng O ffi cer P op e’s fi rs t m eet i ng w i t h H aynes, O ffi cer P op e fi rs t adv i sed H aynes of his Mir anda ri gh t s. See Mir anda v. Ari

z ona , 3 8 4 U. S
. 4 3 6 , 8 6 S
. Ct
. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L. Ed
. 2 d 6 9 4 ( 1 9 6 6 )
. At t h i s t i me H a yn e s d id n o t re q u e st a n a tto rn e y . O f f ice r P o p e m e t w ith H a yn e s a se c o n d tim e , an d a g a in advi s ed H aynes of hi s M i r anda r i ght s . H ow ever , t hi s t i m e, H aynes r eques t ed couns el , and O ffi cer Pope s ubs equent l y s t opped t he i nt er vi ew . A bout one w eek l at er , H ay n es re ce i ved
couns el
. O n M ar ch 3, 2004, O fficer Pope r ece i ved a phone cal l fr om t he j ai l i nfor m i ng Of f i c e rP o p e t h a tHa yn e s h a d a s k e d t o s p e a k wi t h h i m. ¶11
. T hereaft er, O ffi cer P op e and D et ect i ve B l akely w ent t o t he j ai l and m et w i t h H aynes,
r e- advi s ed H aynes of hi s r i ght s , and had H aynes s i gn a w ai verfor m . H aynes di d nots ayhe

w a n ted to talk a b o u t h is c a se , b u t in ste a d a sk e d O f f ice r P o p e se v e ra l q u e stio n s a b o u t h is bond, s chedul i ng, and a pr el i m i naryhear i ng. A l t hough O ffi cerPope’ s t es t i m onyi s uncl ear
as t o t he s equenc e of the r emai ni ng conver s at i on’ s t opi cs , t h e rec o rd provi des a gene r al des cr i pt i on about t he det ai l s of t he conve r s at i on. A ts om e poi ntO ffi cerPope as ked H aynes

### 6

i f anyt hi ng el s e w as bot her i ng hi m , t o w hi ch H aynes s hook hi s head, and then bega n t al ki ng
a b o u t p ro b lem s a t th e jail. ¶12. Fol l ow i ng th i s di s cus s i on, O ffi cerPope as ked H aynes “i f he w ant ed t o t el l us anyt hi ng aboutt he s i tuat i on. ” A gai n, H aynes s hrugged hi s s houl der s . O n cr os s - exami nat i on dur i ng a pre t r i al m ot i on, defe ns e couns el as ked O ffi cerPope w hathe meantby“s i tuat i on. ” O ffi cer P o p e re p lie d “ [ w ]e ll, th e w h o le s i t u a t i o n . W e p ro b a b ly w e re ta lk in g a b o u t th e c h a rg e s .” H ow ever , O ffi cerPope w enton t o s ay“I don’ tt hi nk I w oul d, I ever di r ect l y br ought up t he
a d d re s s o r a n y th in g lik e th a t.” ¶13. O ffi cer Pope t hen as ked H aynes i f he pr evi ous l y had t ol d t he t rut h, t o w hi ch H aynes sh ru g g e d h is s h o u ld e rs a g a in . A t so m e p o in t H a yn e s d isc u ss e d h is vo c a tio n a l a c tiv iti e s, h is i ns t ruct or , and fi s hi ng, al t hough t he r ecor d i s not cl ear as t o w hen t hi s di s cus s i on t ook pl ace . O ffi cerPope t hen s t at ed H aynes w as t ol d t hati tw as obvi ous he had s om ethi ng bot her i ng hi m . O ffi cer Pope s t at ed he and D et ect i ve B l akel y cont i nued t al ki ng w i t h hi m . O ffi cerPope tes tifie d H a yn e s e v e n tu a llyp u t h is h e a d d o w n , too k a d e e p b re a th , rais e d h is h e a d , an d sa id “I ’ m r eadyt o do m yt i m e and be a man. ” O ff icerPope s t at ed H aynes confe s s ed thathe
a ttem p ted to k ill N o w e ll an d se t f ire to h e r h o m e , b u t n e v e r a d m itt e d h a v in g in ter c o u rse w ith h er. ¶ 1 4
. A f

ter th e c o n f

e ss io n , O f

f ice r P o p e sta ted h e a n d D e tec tiv e B lak e lya sk e d H a yn e s if he w oul d w r i t e dow n or al l ow a vi deot api ng of hi s s t at ement . O ffi cerPope t es t i fi ed H aynes told h im n o , b ec au se H ay n es’ a tt o rne yd id n o t w an t him to g ive a n ystat em en ts. T h ere af ter,

### 7

O ffi cerPope ask ed H ay n es i f he w oul d l i ke t o s peak w i t h hi s at t or ney , t o w hi ch H aynes
r es ponded af

fi r m at i vel y . A ft erbei ng cont act ed, H aynes ’ at t or ney w ent t o t he j ai l and af t er t al ki ng w i t h H aynes , t ol d O ffi cerPope t hat he coul d not advi s e hi s cl i entt o gi ve a s t at ement att hatt i m e. ¶15. H aynes cl ai m s hi s confe s s i on w as t he re s ul t of pol i ce i nt err ogat i on, and ther efor e w as i nadmi s s i bl e as a vi ol at i on of Edw ar ds v . Ari z ona , 451 U
. S. 477, 101 S. C t . 1880, 68 L
. E d. 2d 378 ( 1981)
. W h ethe r a confe s s i on i s admi s s i bl e i s a fa ct - fi ndi ng funct i on fort he tr i al
cour t , and i t s deci s i on w i l l notbe overtur ned unl es s t he tr i al cour tappl i ed an i ncorr ectl egal
s t andar d, comm i t t ed mani fes t err or , or m ade a deci s i on agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof th e e v id e n c e . T

h o rs o n v . S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 1 1 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); P a y to n v . S ta te , 897 So. 2 d 9 2 1 , 9 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ); S w in n e y v . S ta te , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 1 6
. I n E dw ar ds , t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Su p r e me Cou r t h e l d “ t h a t a n a c c u s ed .
. . havi ng expr es s ed hi s des i r e t o deal w i t h t he pol i ce onl ythro u g h co u ns el , i s nots ubj ectt o fur t her i nter r ogat i on byt he author i t i es unt i l couns el has been made ava i l abl e t o hi m , unl es s t he
acc us ed hi m s el f i ni t i at es fur t hercomm uni cat i on, excha nges , orconver s at i ons w i t h t he p o lice .” 4 5 1 U .S . at 4 8 4 -4 5 ; see al so Minni ck v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 4 9 8 U .S . 1 4 6 , 1 5 6 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 4 8 6 , 1 1 2 L . E d . 2 d 4 8 9 (1 9 9 0 ); K irk la n d v . S ta te , 5 5 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). ¶17. I n ot herw or ds , once a n acc us ed has i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el , anys t at ement s gi ven byt he def

endanti n r es pons e t o fur t herpol i ce que s t i oni ng ar e admi s s i bl e onl yw her e ( 1) t he d e f e n d a n t in iti a ted f

u rth e r dis c u ss io n s w ith th e p o lice a n d (2 ) kn o w in g lya n d in te lli g e n tly

### 8

w a iv e d th e ri g h ts h e h a d in v o k e d
. S m ith v . Illin o is , 4 6 9 U. S. 9 1 , 9 5 , 1 0 5 S. Ct
. 4 9 0 , 8 3 L. E d
. 2 d 4 8 8 (19 8 4 ). ¶18. A t fi r s t gl ance , i t w oul d appea r t hat any t ype of conver s at i on i ni t i at ed by a def endant

w oul d fal l undert he E dw ar ds exce pt i on. H ow ever , i n O r egon v. B r ads haw , 462 U
. S. 1039, 1045, 103 S. C t . 2830, 77 L
. E d. 2 d 4 0 5 ( 1983) ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on) , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d ot herw i s e: W hi l e w e doubtt hati tw ould b e d esirabl e t o bui l d a s uper s t ructur e of l egal re f in e m e n ts a ro u n d th e w o rd “ in iti a te” in th is c o n tex t, th e re a re u n d o u b ted ly s i tuat i ons w her e a ba r e i nqui r ybyei t hera def endantorbya pol i ce of fi cer s h o u l d n o tb e h e l d t o “ i n i t i a t e ” a n yc o n v e r s a t i o n o rd i a l o g u e . Th e r e a r e s o me i nqui r i es , s uch as a r eques tfora dr i nk of w at erora r eques tt o us e a t el ephone t hatar e s o r out i ne t hatt heycannotbe fa i r l ys ai d t o r epr es enta des i r e on the p a rt o f a n a c c u se d to o p e n u p a m o re g e n e ra lize d d isc u ss io n re latin g d ire c tly ori ndi r ect l yt o t he i nves t i gat i on. Such i nqui r i es ors tat em en ts byei t heran acc us ed ora pol i ce of fi cer , r el at i ng to rou ti n e i nci dent s of t he cus t odi al r el at i ons hi p, w i l l notgener al l y“i ni t i at e” a conver s at i on i n t he s ens e i n w hi ch t hatw or d w as us ed i n E dw ar ds
. St at ed di ffe r en t l y , t he Supr eme C our t ’ s us e of the t er m “i ni t i at e” i nvol ves m or e than the i nq u ir y o f sim p ly“w ho t al ks fi r s t . ” See S a tta y a ra k v . S ta te , 887 P. 2d 1326, 1329 ( O kl a. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). ¶19. I n B r ads haw , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s a m b ig u o u s s ta te m e n t, “[w ] el l , w hati s goi ng t o happen t o m e now ?” expr es s ed a de s i r e t o open up a ge ner al i zed d isc u ss io n a b o u t th e in v e stig a tio n . 4 6 2 U .S . at 1 0 4 5
- 4 6 (p lu ra lityo p in io n ); Id
. at1050 ( P o w e l l , J
. , c o n c u r r i n g ) ( “ [ T ] h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w h e n v i e w e d i n t h e i re n t i r e t y, cl ear l yes t abl i s h a val i d w ai ver of t he ri ght t o couns el )
. I n t he ca s e atbar , aft eri nvoki ng t he

### 9

ri gh t t o cou nsel , H aynes adm i t s to i nit i at i ng con versat i on as t o h i s bon d an d o t her m at t ers , butar gues he di d noti ni t i at e a c onver s at i on as t o t he cha r ges he w as fac i ng. ¶ 2 0
. For t h i s Cou r t , t h i s c a s e i s o f f i r s t i mpr e s s i o n wi t h r egar d t o w hat cons t i t ut es “i ni t i at i on” as t o a conve r s at i on r el at i ng di r ect l yori ndi r ect l yt o t he i nves t i gat i on and
conver s at i on r el at i ng t o r out i ne i nci dent s of t he cus t odi al r el at i ons hi p. ¶21. A l t hough this C our ti s notbound bycas e l aw fr om ot hers t at es , w e l ook t o K r af t v. S ta te , 7 1 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 8 (T e x . A p p . H o u sto n 1 st D ist. 1 9 8 6 ) (a f f irm e d o n a p p e a l f

o r se p a ra te
r eas on) , w hi ch pr ovi des gui dance as t o how ot her cour t s have cons t rued i nqui r i es “r el at i ng t o r out i ne i nci dent s of t he cus t odi al r el at i ons hi p. ” I n K ra ft , t he def

endantw as arr es t ed for d ri v in g w h ile in to x ic a te d
. Id
. at16 9 . K raftw as i nfo rm ed o f his Mir anda r i ght s and th e re a f te r s ta te d h e w a n te d to c a ll h is la w y e r. Id
. W hi l e K r aft w as on t he phone, an off i cer to ld th e d e f

e n d a n t th a t h i s a t t o rn e yc o u ld n o t c o m e d o w n to th e p o lic e s ta tio n . Id
. A ft er hangi ng up, K r aftas ked the off i cerw het h ert he advi ce he r ece i ved overt he phone w as
c o rr e c t; s p e c if

ic a lly, w h e th e r a b o n d s m a n c o u ld g e t h im o u t o f ja il. Id
. at169- 70, 172. T he offi cert ol d K r afthe w oul d be abl e t o cal l a bo n d sm an , an d t hen the off i cerr ecomm ence d q u e s tio n in g . Id . a t 1 6 9 -7 0
. ¶22. A l t h o u g h a T exas t r i al cour t hel d t he defe ndant ’ s ques t i on r ei ni t i at ed conve r s at i on
w ith th e o f

f ice r, th e T e x a s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld o th e rw ise : “[ i]n q u iries a b o u t b a il ar e the t ype of ne ces s aryi nqui r i es ar i s i ng outof t he i nci dent s of t he cus t odi al r el at i ons hi p, di s t i ngui s hed i n E dw ards fr om conver s at i ons evi nci ng a des i r e t o open up m or e gene r al i zedDef endants’ inquirie s reg ardingreque sts to use the telephone, g et a drink of wate r, to contac t 1 his mother, whether the defendant would be held overnight, and what charg es we re be ing a sserted ag ainst the defendant haveall been he ld to aris e o ut o f i n ci dents of the c ustodial relationship. Bradsh aw , 462 U
. S. at1045; P ott s v. Com m on w e a lth , 5 4 6 S. E
. 2d 229, 234 ( V a. C t . A pp. 2 0 0 1 ); United Stat

es v. Lynch , 8 13 F . Su

pp . 9 11 , 9 13 n.4 (D .N .H . 1 99 3) ; State v. Barm on , 679 P
. 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 3 ( O r . C t . Ap p . 1 9 8 4 )
. 

### 10 di s cus s i on r el at i ng t o the i nves t i gat i on. ” Id
. at 172 ( emphasi s added)
. T he courtw enton 1 to f in d th a t th e S tate f

a iled to sh o w a k n o w in g a n d in tellig e n t w a iv e r of K ra f t’ s F if th A m endment r i ghtt o have c ouns el pr es entdur i ng i nt err ogat i on beca us e the poli ce of fi cer
r epea t edl y t ol d t he defe ndant t hat hi s at t or neycoul d notcome t o t he pol i ce s t at i on dur i ng t he in te rv ie w . Id
. ¶ 2 3
. I n t h i s c a s e , Ha yn e s a s k e d t o s p e a k t o O ff i c e r Pop e r e ga r di n g wh a th e t e r ms “pr ocedur al m at t er s , ” i ncl udi ng bond, s chedul i ng, and a p r el i m i naryhear i ng. Fol l ow i ng T exas ’ l ead i n K

ra ft , w e fi nd t hos e i nqui r i es ar e mat t er s “r el at i ng t o r out i ne i nci dent s of t he
cus t odi al r el at i ons hi p” as di s cus s ed i n Br a d s haw
. T her efor e, H aynes ’ ques t i ons di d not “i ni t i at e” a conver s at i on as t he w or d w as us ed i n E dw ar ds
. ¶ 2 4
. M o r e o v e r , a tn o p o i n ti n Off i c e rPo p e ’ s t e s t i mon yd i d h e s a yHayn e s a s ked ot her ques t i ons w hi ch “evi nced a w i l l i ngnes s and a des i r e for a gener al i zed di s cus s i on aboutt he in v e s tig a tio n .” See B r ads haw , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 1 0 4 6 ; U ni ted States v. Velas quez , 885 F. 2d 1076, 1 0 8 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); s ee al s o U ni ted States v. W

haley , 1 3 F
. 3 d 9 6 3 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) (“[A ]n E dw ards i nit i at i on occu rs w hen , w i t ho ut i nfluence b yt he au t ho ri t i es, t he suspe ct sh ow s a
w i l l i ngnes s and a de s i r e t o t al k gener al l yabout h is c ase . ”) I n S m ith , 469 U
. S. at98, t he S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted :

### 11

E dw ards se t f

o rth a “ b rig h t-line ru le” th a t a ll ques t i oni ng m us tcea s e af t eran acc us ed r eques t s couns el
. I n t he abs ence of s uch a br i ght
- l i ne pr ohi bi t i on, t he author i t i es t hr ough “badge r [i ng] ” o r “ o verr eac hi ng” - expl i ci tors ubt l e, del i ber a t e o ru n i n t e n t i o n a l - mi g h to t h e r wi s e wea rd o wn t h e a c c u s e d a nd per s uade hi m t o incrim i nat e hi m s el f not w i t hs t andi ng hi s ear l i err eques tfor couns el ’ s as s i s t ance . (C it ati o n s o m itted). In this ca se, i t w a s o n lyaf ter O ff icer P o p e a n d D etec ti v e B lake ly ’s ques t i ons , s peci fi cal l y , “i f he w ant ed t o t el l us anyt hi ng aboutt he s i tuat i on, ” w hetherH aynes had t ol d t he trut h, and w hatw as bot her i ng hi m , t hatH aynes gave hi s confe s s i on. T her efor e, O ffi cer Pope and D et ect i ve B l akel y ’ s ques t i ons cons t i tut ed i nt err ogat i on aft er H ay nes i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el , and thos e ques t i ons w er e i n vi ol at i on of E dw ar ds
. ¶25
. H ow ever, t he S t a te a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se H aynes recei ved his Mir anda r i ght s and
s i gned a w ai ver of t hos e r i ght s befor e the conve r s at i on t ook pl ace betw een H aynes and the t w o offi cer s , t he tr i al cour tw as corr ecti n al l ow i ng H aynes ’ confe s s i on i nt o evide n ce. M oreove r, t he S t at e argues, n e ith er O ffi cer Pop e no r D et ect i ve B l akelyused an yt hreat s, pr om i s es , orcoer ci on t o obt ai n H aynes ’ confe s s i on. ¶26. E s s ent i al l y , t he St at e i s as ki ng t hi s C our tt o s ki p t he fi r s ts t ep of the E dw ar ds analy si s,
w hi ch r equi r es t hi s C our tt o det er m i ne w hethert he def endanti ni t i at ed furtherdi s cus s i ons
w i t h t he pol i ce, and foc us onl yon t he s econd s t ep, w hi ch r equi r es t hi s C our tt o det er m i ne
w h e th e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t k n o w in g ly an d in te llig e n tly w a i v e d t h e ri g h ts h e h a d in v o k e d . W e f in d th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. See U ni ted States v. Cannon , 9 8 1 F .2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 9 (5 th C i r . 1993) ( “D et er m i ni ng w ho i ni t i at ed the conve r s at i on aft er[def endant ] i nvoked hi s r i ght t o couns el i s es s ent i al t o a Fi ft h A m endment i nqui r y . ”) ( ci t i ng B r adf or d v. W hi tley , 953 F. 3d

### 12

1 0 08, 1010 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) )
. E ven i f H aynes know i ngl y , i nt el l i gent l y , and vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ght , t he w ai verdoes notcur e a vi ol at i on of E dw ar ds
. See U ni ted States v. W

ebb , 755 F. 2d 382, 390 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) ( ci t i ng Solem v. St um es , 4 6 5 U. S. 6 3 8 , 1 0 4 S. Ct
. 1 3 3 8 , 7 9 L. E d
. 2 d 5 7 9 (19 8 4 )). ¶27
. A case deali ng w i t h both defe nd ant i nit i at i on and w ai ver of ri gh t s i s Sattayar ak , 887 P. 2d at1329. T her e, Sat t ay ar ak i nvoked her r i ghtt o couns el dur i ng cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on. Id
. T h e n e x t m o rn in g , s h e w a s h a n d c u f f e d a n d p la c e d in a c a r w ith a p o lic e o f f ic e r. Id
. As th e c a r b e g a n to d ri v e o f f , s h e a s k e d th e o f

f ic e r w h e re th e yw e re g o in g . Id
. I n r es pons e, t he offi cert ol d hert hei rdes t i nat i on and then as ked i f s he ha d m ade a nys t at ement s t o ot her
o f f ic e rs . Id
. B ef

o re sh e co u ld an sw er, th e o ff icer rea d S att ay ara k h er Mir anda ri g h ts . Id
. T h e o f f ic e r w e n t o n to a s k h e r i f s h e w o u ld a n s w e r h is q u e s tio n s a n d g iv e a s ta te m e n t. Id
. T he O kl ahoma cr i m i nal appea l s cour tnot o n ly h el d Sat t ay ar ak’ s ques t i on “coul d notbe
cons t rued as an i nvi t at i on t o di s cus s any as pect of t he i nves t i gat i on, ” butal s o hel d t he w ai ver “w as t he r es ul tof pol i ce- i ni t i at ed ques t i oni ng and [w as ] notval i d. ” Id
. at1329- 30. A s s uch, t he courthel d i tw as err ort o admi tSat t ay ar ak’ s s t at ement s gi ven af t ert he off

i ceri ni t i at ed th e c o n v e rs a tio n . Id
. at1330. ¶28
. In t his case, al t ho ug h O ffi cer Pop e had H aynes si gn a w ai ver o f his Mir anda rig h ts b e f o r e a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n t o o k p l a c e , j u s t a s i n S a tta yar ak , i tw as t he off

i cer s w ho i ni t i at ed d isc u ss io n re latin g to th e in v e stig a tio n w h e n O f f ice r P o p e a sk e d H a yn e s “ if h e w a n ted to tell

u s a n y t h i n g a b o u tt h e s i tu a t i o n , ” wh e t h e rh e h a d t o l d t h e t ru t h , a n d wh a twa s b o t h e r i n g h i m.

### 13

¶29. Fur t her m or e, t o acc ept t he St at e’ s ar gum entt hat H aynes w ai ved hi s r i ght t o couns el

w oul d i nval i dat e the “i ni t i at ion ” d is t i nct i on s etfor t h i n B r ads haw
. A d o p ti n g the S tat e’s pos i t i on w oul d al l ow an off i cert o ques t i on a def

endants ubs equentt o t he i nvocat i on of
c o u n s e l, w h e re th e d e f

e n d a n t a s k e d a q u e s tio n th a t is c u s to d ia l in n a tu re . ¶3 0
. B ec au se th e tri al j u d g e a ll o w ed H aynes ’ confe s s i on into e v iden ce b ase d o n the jud g e’s f in d in g th a t H a yn e s’ “ in iti a ted ” c o n tac t w ith P o p e in th e se n se th a t H a yn e s w a s e ss e n tially t h e “ f i r s tt o s p e a k , ” we f

i n d t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d b y a p p l y i n g a n i n c o r r e c t l e g a l s t a n d a r d
. As
cas e l aw s how s , an i ni t i at i on bya d ef en dantr egar di ng i nqui r i es r el at i ng t o t he cus t odi al
r el at i ons hi p does not cons t i tut e an “i ni t i at i on” w i t hi n t h e m ea n ing of E dw ar ds
. A s s uch, O ff icer P o p e a n d D etec ti v e B lake lyv iolated H ayn es’ F ift h A m en d m en t ri g h t un d er E dw ar ds
w h e n th e o f

f ice rs b e g a n q u e stio n in g H a yn e s a b o u t th e in v e stig a tio n . H a yn e s h a d p re v io u sly i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o counse l an d r ei ni t i at ed conve r s at i on w i t h Pope onl yas t o m at t er s of b o n d , sc h e d u lin g , a n d p re lim in a ryh e a rin g . T h e re f o re , w e f in d th e c irc u it j u d g e e rre d in admi t t i ng t he conf

es s i on i nt o evi dence
.

B . H arm l es s E rror ¶31
. W e m ustno w determ i ne w hethert he ad m i ssi on of the con fess i on c on s t i tuted harm l ess
err or , t hus al l ow i ng t he ver di ct t o s t and. “The adm i s s i on of conf es s i ons obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of E dw ar ds and i t s pr ogenycons t i tut es t r i al err or , and i s t her efor e am enabl e t o har m l es s err or anal y s i s . ” G oodw in v. Johnson , 1 3 2 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 8 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); U ni ted States v. W

ebb , 7 5 5 F .2 d 3 8 2 , 3 9 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). In o rd e r fo r a vio latio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to b e h e ld

### 14

h a rm les s, t his C ou rtm ustdeterm i ne thatt he v i olat i on w as harm l ess bey on d a reasonab le d o u b t. Ch a

p m a n v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U
. S. 18, 23, 87 S. C t . 824, 17 L
. E d. 2d 705 (19 6 7 ). Si m i l ar l y , t hi s C our thas hel d “err or s i nvol vi ng a vi ol at i on of an a ccus ed’ s cons t i tut i onal
r i ght s m aybe dee m ed harm l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt w her e t he w ei ght of t he evi dence agai ns tt he ac cus ed i s overw hel m i ng. ” Cla rk v . S ta te , 891 So. 2d 1 3 6 , 142 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng R iddley v . S ta te , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶32. H er e, w i t hout H aynes ’ confe s s i on, t he St at e s ubm i t t ed onl y ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t Ha yn e s ’ a c tu a l l y s e t t h e f i r e wh i c h l e d t o No we l l ’ s d e a t h
. Al t h o u g h DNA of t he s emen found on N ow el l ’ s bodym at ched H aynes ’ D N A i ndi cat i ng s exual bat t ery , t he St at e pr es ent ed l i t t l e conc r et e evi dence actual l ys how i ng H aynes w as r es pons i bl e fors et t i ng t he fi r e. O nl y a s m al l bur n on H aynes ’ j acke tas w el l as t he odorof s m oke l i nked hi m t o t he fire. W ith o u t H ay n es’ c o n fe ssion , the ju rym ayh av e g iven d iffe ren t w e ig h t to the S tat e’s
e v id e n c e , a n d p o s s ib ly in H a yn e s ’ f a v o r. See P a lm v . S ta te , 74 8 S o. 2d 13 5, 14 2 (M i ss. 1999) ( “W hi l e s om e s t at ement s bya def endantm ayconce r n i s ol at ed aspe ct s of t he cr i m e or
m aybe i ncr i m i n ati n g onl yw hen l i nked t o ot herevi dence , a ful l confe s s i on i n w hi ch the defe ndantdi s cl os es t he mot i ve forand means of t he cr i m e mayt empt t he j ur yt o r el yupon t hat evi dence al one i n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on. ”) ( ci t i ng A riz o n a v . F u lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. 279, 2 9 6 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 1 2 4 6 , 1 1 3 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 2 (1 9 9 1 ))
. ¶3 3. M or e ov e r , H a yne s ’ a r gu ment t ha t Love may ha ve pl a y e d a r ol e i n the cr i m e al so
c o n stitu tes a sh if

t in th e trial’s d yn a m ic. H a yn e s ar g u e d d u rin g trial th a t p o lice d id n o t f u lly

### 15

i n v e s t i g a t e Lo v e a s a s u s p e c ti n t h e c r i me , a l t h o u g h Hayn e s o r i g i n a l l yt o l d p o l i c e Love perpetr at ed the cr i m e. H aynes al s o ar gued t hat pol i ce di d not r eques t L ove’ s cl ot hes t o chec k fori gni t abl e fl ui ds i n or dert o s h o w L o v e m igh t ha ve ca us ed the fi r e, nordi d t heychec k L ove’ s s h o e s t o d e t e r mi n e whe t h e rt h e yma t c h e d a s h o e p r i n tf o u n d a tNowel l ’ s hom e. F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h o u tH a yn e s ’ c o n f e s s i o n , t h e j u r y m i g h th a v e q u e s t i o n e d L o v e ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y. H aynes poi nt ed outL ove’ s i ncons ist en t st or i es as t o how L ove ca m e i nt o pos s es s i on of N ow el l ’ s gun. E ven t hough L ove’ s m ot hert es t i fi ed Love w as atherhous e the ni ghtof t he
m ur der , w hen conf

r ont ed, L ove or i gi nal l ydeni ed know i ng aboutt he gun. L ove l at er change d hi s s t or ys t at i ng H aynes s ol d hi m t he gun. ¶34. H ow ever , t he evi dence agai ns t H aynes , di s r egar di ng hi s confe s s i on, i s overw hel m i ng and l i nks hi m t o t he s cene of t he cr i m e. T he evi dence i ncl udes H aynes ’ D N A found att he
cr i m e s cene ; H aynes ’ fi ngerpr i nt s found on a not e out s i de N ow el l ’ s hom e; a burnts poton H a yn e s’ ja c k e t, as w e ll a s th e o d o r o f sm o k e ; H a yn e s’ k n o w led g e o f th e c rim e a s to ld to O ffi cer St eed an d O ffi cer Pop e, al l eging L ov e w as r espon si ble for the cri m e; t hat H aynes’ g ra n d m o th e r se rv e d a s N o w e ll’s c a re tak e r; b u llets ta k e n f ro m N o w e ll’s h o m e w e re f o u n d in t he fl oorboar d of t he ca rbel ongi ng t o H aynes ’ gr andmot her ; a pi ece of cl ot h found at N o w e ll ’ s h o m e w a s s im ilar to a p iec e f o u n d in th e c a r; H a yn e s h a d p o ss e ss io n o f h is g ra n d m o th e r’s c a r k e y s th e n ig h t o f th e c rim e ; a n d L o v e ’s tes tim o n y th a t H a yn e s s o ld h im
a g u n th a t w a s re g iste re d in N o w e ll’s n a m e a n d w a s ta k e n f ro m h e r h o m e . B a se d o n th is

### 16

large am o u n t o f e v iden ce estab li sh ing H ay n es’ c u lpab il ity , w e f ind the c ir cu itjud g e’s
a d m iss io n o f

H a yn e s’ c o n f

e ss io n w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶35. F inal l y , al t hough t hi s C our thel d i n B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 58 0 So
. 2d 12 03 , 12 09 (M i ss. 1991) , t hatt he admi s s i on of a defe ndant ’ s ful l confe s s i on di d not cons t i tut e harm l es s err or
w her e the conf

es s i on w as obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of E dw ar ds an d n o o ther c o n fe ssion s w ere pr es ent ed i nt o evi dence , w e fi nd Bal f ouri s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hi s cas e. I n Bal f our , this C our tfound t he def

endant ’ s Fi ft h and Four t eenth A m endment r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the
o f f ic e rs re in itia te d in te r ro g a tio n a f te r t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d in v o k e d h e r r ig h t to c o u n s e l. Id
. H e re, ho w ever, H aynes i nit i at ed the m eet i ng w i t h O ffi cer P op e and D et ect i ve B l akelyin

w hi ch H aynes s ubs equent l ygave a confe s s i on. ¶36. B eca us e w e fi nd t he admi s s i on of H aynes ’ co n fe ssion co ns t i tut ed harm l es s er r or b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, w e f ind n o rev ersible e rror. I I I . W H E T H ER TH E T R IA L C O U R T ’S JU D G M E N T IS S UPP OR TED BY THE EVI DENCE. ¶ 3 7
. H a yn e s a rg u e s th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t trial is in su f f icie n t as a m a tter o f

law to
w arr ant a convi ct i on on t he t hr ee count s of t he i ndi ct m ent . A ddi t i onal l y , H aynes ar gues t he

w e i g h to f

t h e S t a t e ’ s e v i d e n c e w a s n o ts u f f i c i e n tf o ra r e a s o n a b l e j u r o rt o f i n d h i m g u i l t y. ¶38. W hen det er m i ni ng w h ethe r th e evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on, “the
r el evantques t i on i s w hether , aft ervi ew i ng t he e v iden ce i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he p r o s e c u t i o n , a n yr a t i o n a l t r i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d t he e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f t h e c r i me b ey o n d a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” B u sh v . S ta te , 8 9 5 So
. 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i ng

### 17

J a c k so n v . V

irg in ia , 443 U
. S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2781, 61 L
. E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) )
. E xcl udi ng H aynes’ confessi on , and con si deri ng on l yt he ev i den ce t he S t at e present ed i n t he li gh tm ost fa v o rab le t o the S tat e, w e f ind su ff ici en t evid en ce ex is te d to c o n v ictH ay n es o f m u rde r,
s exual bat t ery , and fi r s tdegr ee a r s on. A s di s cus s ed i n ourhar m l es s er r oranal y s i s above, H aynes ’ D N A and fi ngerpr i nt s w er e fou n d at t he cr i m e s cene , H aynes had det ai l ed kno w ledg e o f t he cr i m e as r el at ed t o O ffi cerSt eed a nd O ffi cerPope, al l egi ng L ove w as
r es pons i bl e fort he cr i m e, as w el l as ot herfac t or s connec t i ng H aynes t o t he cr i m e. ¶3 9
. W h en d eterm ining w h ethe r a v erd ict is ag ains t the w eigh t o f the ev iden ce , this C o u rt
w e ig h s th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to v e rd ic t. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844. M or eover , “the ver di ctm us tbe ‘ s o contr aryt o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence t hat t o al l ow i t t o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ’ ” D ilw o rth v . S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 737 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng B u sh , 89 5 S o. 2d at84 4). A gain, excludi ng H aynes’
co n fe ssion , H ay n es p rov ided li tt le, if an y , ev iden ce o r ex p lana ti o n to ref u te t h e S tat e’s evi dence t hatconnec t ed hi m t o t he cr i m e s cene . T her efor e, w e ca nnots ayt he ver di ctw as
c o n tra ryto th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e so a s to c re a te a n u n c o n sc io n a b le in ju s tic e . See id
. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 4 0
. A lth o u g h w e f

in d th e c irc u it j u d g e e rre d w h e n h e a d m itt e d H a yn e s’ c o n f e ss io n in to evi dence , w e fi nd t he adm i s s i on of H aynes ’ confe s s i on cons t i tut ed harm l es s err orbey ond a
reas on able dou bt. W e do so based on t he Stat e’s ov erw helm i ng evidence p res ented against

### 18

H a yn e s. W e a lso f

in d th e e v id e n c e su f

f icie n t to su sta in th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. F in a lly , w e h o ld t hatt he j ur y ’ s ver di cti s cons i s t entw i t h t he w ei ghtof t he evi dence p rese n ted b y the St at e. T h e re f o re , w e a f

f irm th e c irc u it co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. ¶ 4 1
. CO UN T I : CO NV I CT I O N O F M UR DE R A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . COUNT I I : CO NVI CT I ON OF S EX UAL BA TT ER Y AN D S E NT E NC E OF T HI RT Y ( 3 0 ) YE AR S I N THE CUST OD Y O F T HE M ISS IS S IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T III : C O N V I C T I O N O F A R SO N ( F I R ST D E G R E E ) A N D SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y ( 20) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. THE S ENTENCE I M POS ED I N CO UNT I I S HA LL RU N C ON S E CU TI VE TO TH E S E NT E NC E I M P OS E D I N C OU NT I . T HE S E NT E NC E I M P OS E D I N C OU NT I I I S HA LL RU N C ON S E CU T I VE T O T HE S E N T E N C E S I M P O S E D I N C O U N T I A N D C O U N T I I . E A S L E Y A N D C A R L S O N , JJ . , C O N C U R . R A N D O L P H , J. , C O N C U R S IN RES ULT ON LY . DI CK I NSON, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P . J J . , A N D G R A V E S , J . D I A Z , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶4 2
. I agr ee w i t h Par t s I and I I I of t he pl ur al i t y opi ni on, but beca us e I am unabl e t o agr ee
w ith P a rt II, I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t. ¶43. T he pl ur al i t yagr ees t hatH aynes ’ cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed, butdecl ar es t he

v io latio n h a rm les s. In m yv iew , the h a rm les s e rro r a n a ly sis e m p lo y e d b yth is C o u rt in th is
cas e, and i n ot herr ece nt cas es , i s fl aw ed. W e have depart ed fr om gui del i nes s etfor t h byt he U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rt , i nst ead em ploy i ng ou r ow n tes t s for det erm i ning harm l ess
err or . O u r a n al y s i s has al l butevi s cer at ed harm l es s err oranal y s i s , tur ni ng i ti nt o a r evi ew

### 19

of t he w ei ght and s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence , r ather t han an i ndepende ntr evi ew of w hether t he uncons t i tut i onal l yadmi t t ed evi dence contr i but ed t o t he convi ct i on. ¶44. A l l fi ft y s t at es and t he fede r al s y s t em per m i t har m l es s err or anal y s i s i n or der t o s ave convi ct i ons fr om r ever s al bas ed on err or s w hi ch do notaff ectt he s ub sta nt i al r i ght s of t he p a rt ie s . Ch a

p m a n v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U
. S
. 1 8 , 2 2 , 8 7 S
. C t. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L
. E d
. 2 d 7 0 5 (19 6 7 ). H ar m l es s err or s ar e onl y t hos e “w hi ch i n t he s et t i ng of a part i cul arcas e ar e s o uni m por t ant and i ns i gni fi cantt hatt heym ay , cons i s t entw i t h t he Feder al C ons t it u ti o n , b e dee m ed har m l es s , notr equi r i ng t he aut om at i c r ever s al of t he convi ct i on. ” I d. In cond ucti ng harm l ess
e rro r a n a ly sis , this C o u r t h a s th e p o w e r a n d d u tyto re v iew th e re c o rd d e n o v o in o rd e r to d e te rm in e th e e rr o r’ s e f f e c t. A riz o n a v . F u lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. 279, 295, 111 S. C t . 1246, 1 1 3 L
. E d. 2d 302 ( 1991)
. H ar m l es s err orm ayappl yt o cas es w her e an acc u sed ’s
c o n s titu tio n a l ri g h ts w e re v io la te d
. Chapm an , 386 U
. S. at22. T hi s i ncl udes i nvol unt aryor
c o e rc e d c o n f

e s s io n s , F u lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. at 308, and vi ol at i ons of Edw ar ds v . Ari z ona , 4 5 1 U .S . 4 7 7 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 1 8 8 0 , 6 8 L . E d . 2 d 3 7 8 (1 9 8 1 ), a n d i t s p ro g e n y . See G oodw in v. Johnson , 1 3 2 F
. 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 8 1 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). ¶ 4 5
. T h e v io latio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t m a y n o t b e d e e m e d h a rm les s u n les s c e rta in gui del i nes ar e fol l ow ed, as s etfor t h byt he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t . T he curr entver s i on of har m l es s err or anal y s i s w as announce d byt he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n Chapm an butt r ace s i t s or i gi ns back t o P ayne v. A r kansas , 356 U
. S. 560, 78 S. C t . 844, 2 L
. E d. 2d 975 ( 1958) , and Fahy v. Connec ti c ut , 3 7 5 U
. S
. 8 5 , 8 4 S
. C t. 2 2 9 , 1 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 7 1 (19 6 3 ). In

### 20

Chapm an , t he C our t hel d t hat , befor e a f eder al cons t i tut i onal err orcan be hel d har m l es s , t he C ou rt m ust be abl e t o decl are a beli ef that i tw as har m l es s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. 386 U
. S. at 24. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our t pl ace d t he burde n on t he benefi ci aryof t he err ort o pr ove th e re w a s n o in

ju ry; o th e rw is e re v e rs a l o f th e e rr o n e o u s ly o b ta in e d ju d g m e n t is re q u ir e d
. I d. ¶ 4 6
. T h e p h ra se “ h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t” h a s n o w b e c o m e sy n o n y m o u s w ith h a rm les s e rro r a n a ly sis , b u t th is C o u rt’s c u rre n t u sa g e o f th a t p h ra se h a s s e t itlo o se f ro m its
or i gi nal m oor i ngs . T he Chapm an C ou rtfou nd l i t t l e di ff e r e nc e betw een the ph ras e “harm l ess bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ” and t he C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Fahy
. I d. I n Fahy t he C our thel d: W e ar e notconc ern ed her e w i t h w hethert her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence on w hi ch the pet i t i onercoul d have be en convi ct ed w i t houtt he evi dence c o m p la in e d o f
. The ques t i on is w hetherther e is a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y that the ev i dence com

pl ai ned of

m ighthave c ontr i but ed t o the conv i ct i on . Fahy , 3 7 5 U
. S
. at 86 -87 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W h il e the U n ite d S ta tes S u p rem e C o u rt ’s
w or di ng has change d over the y ear s , t he bas i c t enetr emai ns t he s ame – t he i m pactof t he
err oneous l yadmi t t ed evi dence , r athert han the pr op erlyadmi t t ed evi dence , s houl d be

w e ig h e d to d e te rm in e w h a t e rr o rs a re h a rm le s s . F u lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. at296. ¶47. I n H

a rr in g to n v . Ca lifo rn ia , 395 U
. S. 250, 254, 89 S. C t. 1 7 2 6 , 2 3 L
. E d. 2d 284 ( 1969) , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d har m l es s t he admi s s i on of conf es s i ons bynont es t i fy i ng co- defe ndant s i n vi ol at i on of t he def endant ’ s r i ghtof co n fro n t at i on. W hi l e t he C our tdi s cus s ed the overw hel m i ng evi dence of gui l t i n t hatcas e, i tdi d notbas e i t s deci s i on
o n th e w e ig h t a n d s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e u n t a i n t e d a n d c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e . I d. T h e C o u rt

### 21

f o l l o wed t he Ch apm an pr ocedur e byexami ni ng t he i m pactof t he i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed confe s s i ons on t he s peci fi c fa ct s of t hatcas e: O urj udgm entm us tbe bas ed on ourow n r ea d ing o f the re cor d and on w hat s eems t o us t o have been the prob ab l e i m pa ctof the tw o co nfes si on s on t he m in d s o f a n a v e ra g e ju ry. W

e adm onis hed i n C hapm an agai ns tg i vi ng t oo m u c h e m p h a sis to ‘o v e rw h e lm in ge v id e n c e ’ o f g u ilt , s t at i ng t hatcons t i tut i onal err or s aff

ect i ng t he s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of t he aggr i eved pa r t ycoul d notbe c o n sid e re d to b e h a rm les s. B y th a t te st w e c a n n o t im p u te re v e rsib le w e ig h t to th e tw o c o n f

e s s io n s . W

e do not depar t f

r om C hapm an; nor do w e di l ut e i tby in fe r e n c e . W

e r e a ffir m it. W e d o n o t s u g g e st th a t, i f e v id e n c e b e a rin g o n a ll the ing r edi ent s of t he cr i m e i s t ender ed, t he us e of c um ul at i ve evi dence , th o u g h tain ted , is h a rm les s e rro r. O u r de c isio n is b a se d o n th e e v id e n c e in th is r ecor d. T he ca s e aga i ns tH arr i ngt o n w as n otw oven fr om ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
. I d. (E m p h a s is a d d e d ; c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o F u lm in a n te , 49 9 U
. S
. at29 6 (harm l ess
err oranal y s i s r equi r ed the C our tt o “det er m i ne[] w hethert he St at e has m eti t s bur den of d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e a d m iss io n o f th e c o n f

e ss io n to S a riv o la d id n o t co n trib u te to F u lm inan te’s co n v ict ion
. ”). ¶48. W hi l e i ti s uncl earat w hat poi ntt hi s C our t ’ s anal y s i s change d di r ect i on, t he r es ul t i ng i m pacti s pr ofound. O urcont empora r yappr oach, as r ece nt l yannounce d i n Cla rk v . S ta te , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ), h o lds tha t “errors inv o lving a v io la tio n o f a n ac cu sed ’s
cons t i tut i onal r i ght s m ay be deemed har m l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt w her e t he w ei ght
o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in st th e a c c u se d is o v e rw h e lm in g .” T h is le v e l o f re v iew d e p riv e s th is C o u rt o f its ro le in p ro tec tin g th e a c c u se d ’s c o n stitu tio n a l r ig h ts, le a v in g th e iss u e sq u a re ly i n t he hands of t he tr i al cour t , w hos e dec i s i ons w e now m er el yr evi ew fort he w ei ghtand
s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e . Chapm an re q u ire s th is C o u rt to d o m o re . W e a re re q u ire d , in

### 22

m yv iew , to in q u ire in to th e c h a ra c ter a n d q u a lityo f th e tain ted e v id e n c e to d e ter m in e if it
r eas onabl ycontr i but ed t o t he convi ct i on. I t i s s i m pl y not enough t o s ayt hat , had the t ai nt ed evi dence been e xcl uded, t he admi s s i bl e evi dence w as s t r ong enough t o s ecur e a c onvi ct i on. ¶4 9. T urni ng t o the pr e s e ntc a s e , i ti s be y on d q ue s t i on t ha tt he po l i c e vi ol a t e d H a y nes’ F i f t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n tr i g h t s a s e s p o u s e d b y E dw ar ds
. I cannotfathom how t he pl ur al i t ycoul d concl ude the t ainted evi dence coul d notpos s i bl yhave c ont r i but ed t o t he
c o n v ictio n . T h e U n ited S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a g re e d th a t a d e f e n d a n t’s c o n f

e ss io n is p e rh a p s th e m o s t p r o b a tiv e a n d p re ju d icia l ev id e n c e th a t th e S tate c a n p ro d u c e a t trial. F u lm in a n te , 49 9 U
. S
. at29 6 (fi nd i ng adm i ssi on of co erced con fessi on w as not harm l ess
err or )
. Si t t i ng as an appe l l at e court , w e cannot s ay t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y t he j ur ygave to H ay n es’ co n fe ssion w as i n co n seq u en ti al, esp ec ial ly w h ere the rem aind er of th e S tat e’s
e v id e n c e w a s c ir c u m s ta n tia l. See H ar r ington , 3 9 5 U .S . at 2 5 4 ; Pay ne , 356 U
. S. at568. A nd bey ond t hat , w e ce r t ai nl ycannots ayt he uncons t i tut i onal l ys ecur ed conf es sion di d not
r eas onabl y contr i but e t o H aynes ’ convi ct i on. I ndeed, abs entt he cons t i tut i onal l yforbi dden
con fessi on , ho nestand fai r- m i nd ed jur ors m i gh tveryw el l hav e arr i ved atno t -gui l t yverdi ct s. See Chapm an , 386 U
. S. at25. ¶5 0
. T h is C o u rth as p rev iou sly fo u n d a sim il ar E dw ards vi ol at i on t o be r ever s i bl e and not h a rm le s s . B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 580 So. 2d 1203, 1 2 09 ( M i s s . 1991)
. I di s agr ee w i t h t he plur al i t y ’s con cl usi on th a t B a l four and the pr es entcas e ar e di s t i ngui s habl e. I n bot h cas es t he pol i ce vi ol at ed the acc us ed’ s r i ght s i n conduct i ng a cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on fol l ow i ng a

### 23

re q u e st to h a v e c o u n se l p re se n t. T h e f a c t th a t B a lf

o u r d id n o t re in iti a te th e d isc u ss io n w ith th e p o lice w h ile H a yn e s d id is im m a ter ial. In th e p re se n t c a se , H a yn e s’ re in iti a tin g d e a lt o n ly

w i t h m at t er s r el at ed t o bond, s chedul i ng, and hi s pr el i m i nary hear i ng. W hen the p ol i ce ques t i oned H aynes fur t heraboutgener al m at t er s related t o t he cha r ges agai ns thi m , t hey cl ear l y vi ol at ed hi s Fi ft h and Four t eenth A m endment r i ght s . T hes e w er e the s ame r i ght s t he pol i ce vi ol at ed i n Bal

f our , an d th e m in o r u n d e rly in g f a c tu a l d istin c tio n s a re n o t en o u g h to di s t i ngui s h t he har d and fa s trul e. ¶51. O nce he i nvoked his ri g h t to co uns el , H aynes had a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtnott o be ques t i oned w i t houthi s couns el pr es ent , and the vi ol at i on of t hatr i ghts houl d notbe
emasc ul at ed byot herevi dence of gui l t . I w o u l d r ever s e the tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand
rem and t his case for a new t ri al w hich excludes evidence of H aynes’ con fessi on . F or t hese
re a so n s, I m u st re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t. W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , AND GRAV ES , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.