Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/fifth-amendment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:44:50+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Romero v. Colorado Department of Human Services on Thursday, January 11, 2018.
Colorado State Administrative Procedure Act—Sexual Abuse—Evidentiary Facts—Adverse Inference—Fifth Amendment.
In this administrative law case, the Larimer County Department of Human Services (DHS) made a finding confirming that Romero sexually abused his grandchildren and exposed one grandchild to an injurious environment, which required Romero to be listed in the statewide child abuse registry. Romero appealed DHS’s confirmations pursuant to Colorado’s State Administrative Procedure Act (APA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded in an initial decision that the preponderance of the evidence did not support DHS’s confirmation decisions. DHS appealed, and the Colorado Department of Human Services (Department) reversed the ALJ’s initial decision, concluding that the evidentiary facts, including an adverse inference based on Romero’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, supported a finding that Romero sexually abused his grandchildren. Romero appealed to the district court, which reversed the Department’s final decision.
On appeal, the Department argued that the district court erred by overruling the Department’s final decision and by restricting the application of the adverse inference to situations where the Department provides an “adequate explanation” of why it has applied the inference. An agency’s determination in a final agency action to apply an adverse inference to a defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent is an ultimate conclusion of fact under the APA. Consequently, the agency is required, as a matter of law, to make its own determination regarding the adverse inference and can substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative law judge regarding the inference and the weight to give the inference in light of the other evidence presented. To apply the adverse inference for invocation of the right against self-incrimination, a party in a civil case must have been asked questions the answers to which would have been potentially incriminating in a future criminal action, and the party must have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. There must also have been probative evidence offered against the person claiming the privilege.
It is undisputed that during discovery for the ALJ hearing, DHS deposed Romero and asked him incriminating questions, including whether he touched his grandchildren for his own sexual gratification. It is also undisputed that Romero invoked his Fifth Amendment rights for the entire deposition except for the first few questions. Further, the record is clear that had Romero been called to testify at the ALJ hearing, he would have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights because of the ongoing criminal investigation into the allegations. Here, the Department’s application of the adverse inference was not arbitrary or capricious because it was supported by the record; it considered Romero’s constitutional rights; and it was not contrary to the law on Fifth Amendment adverse inference. Further, there is no authority that supports the district court’s imposition of a duty on the Department to provide an explanation for why it was applying the inference. Accordingly, the district court erred by effectively precluding the Department from making its own determination on the adverse inference.
Romero argued that the district court’s judgment should be upheld because the facts relied on by DHS to support findings of sexual abuse are speculative and do not support the ultimate findings. The Department’s view of the evidence was not speculative or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented to the ALJ.
The district court’s judgment overturning the Department’s final decision was reversed.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Schneider v. People on Monday, October 17, 2016.
Schneider sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming his convictions and consecutive sentences for two counts of sexual assault. The jury returned guilty verdicts on one count of sexual assault of a physically helpless victim and another count of sexual assault by causing submission of a victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim’s will, based on evidence of a single, continuous penetration of the same victim. The trial court imposed mandatory consecutive sentences for conviction of separate crimes of violence arising out of the same incident.
The court of appeals upheld the two sexual assault convictions against challenges of jeopardy and merger, on the grounds that defendant was convicted of violating two separate statutes. It also upheld the trial court’s order of consecutive sentences, on the grounds that consecutive sentences were mandated by statute unless both convictions were supported by identical evidence, which it reasoned could not be the case where the evidence required to prove each sexual assault charge was inconsistent with that required to prove the other.
The supreme court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, although on slightly different grounds. Although C.R.S. § 18-3-402 proscribes a single crime of “sexual assault,” which can be committed in either of the two ways charged in this case, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a jury finding that defendant committed that single crime of “sexual assault” twice against the same victim.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Higgins v. People on Monday, October 3, 2016.
Criminal Law—Juvenile Law—Psychotherapist– Patient Privilege—Constitutional Law.
This companion case to People v. Johnson, 2016 CO 69, raises two questions. First, does a trial court have statutory authority to order a juvenile charged as an adult to undergo a state-administered mental health assessment for a reverse-transfer proceeding? The supreme court answered that question in the negative in Johnson, but does not answer that question here because it is hypothetical—the question is not based on the facts of this case. Second, is a trial court required, before a mental health assessment, to provide a juvenile with warnings based on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? The court does not answer that question either, because (1) Higgins consented to the evaluation while represented by counsel, and (2) any claims that ineffective assistance of counsel vitiated Higgins’s consent are premature. Therefore, the court vacated the order to show cause and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Cardman on Thursday, September 22, 2016.
Sexual Assault—Custodial Interrogation—Miranda—Right to Counsel—Third Party.
The police executed a search warrant on defendant’s home after the victim reported that defendant had sexually assaulted her. During the search, they recovered a weapon, and defendant was arrested on the charge of possession of a weapon by a previous offender. Defendant promptly exercised his rights to remain silent and to counsel, and the police ceased questioning. Two days later, a police detective conducted another interview of defendant during which defendant admitted to three instances of sexual contact with the victim. An audio recording of defendant’s second police interview was admitted at trial. Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault on a child.
On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred by not suppressing statements he made during his second custodial interrogation because he had previously invoked his right to counsel and did not himself reinitiate communication with the police. To establish that a suspect has reinitiated discussions with the police after previously invoking his right to counsel, the prosecution must show that (1) the police reasonably believed that the suspect directed a third party to inform them that he wanted to have “a generalized discussion about the investigation,” and (2) the police confirmed with the suspect that he had so indicated. Here, the detective’s testimony was clear that defendant’s wife informed him that defendant had questions about the investigation. Further, the detective knew the caseworker had also been in contact with defendant after the first interview, and she also informed him that both defendant and his wife had questions about the investigation. The detective then called defendant at the jail and confirmed that defendant desired to speak with him. Therefore, defendant “adequately evinced a willingness and a desire to” reinitiate communication with the police through a third party and there was no error in admitting his inculpatory statements.
Defendant also contended that the statements he made in the second interview were not voluntary and that the court erred in not holding a hearing on the issue of voluntariness. The court of appeals did not reach the merits of this issue because defendant moved to suppress the statements solely on reinitiation grounds and thus waived the voluntariness claims.
Defendant also argued that reversal is required because the recording of the interview admitted at trial included the detective’s assertions that he believed the victim and did not believe defendant’s denials of the victim’s allegations, and because the detective testified that he did not believe defendant. The court discerned no plain error in the admission of this evidence.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Golicov v. Lynch on Monday, September 19, 2016.
On remand, Golicov moved to terminate the proceedings on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), effectively rendered unconstitutional and improper for use in immigration proceedings the definition of “crime of violence” contained in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). The IJ rejected his argument on remand, and the BIA affirmed the IJ. Golicov appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit noted that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires specificity in order to properly apprise ordinary people of the conduct that is prohibited. The government initially argued that because a removal proceeding is civil, the criminal law holding in Johnson should not apply. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, noting that because deportation proceedings can strip non-citizens of their rights, statutes that impose the penalty of deportation are subject to Fifth Amendment vagueness challenges.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed Johnson‘s holding that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was void for vagueness, and noted the similarity between the ACCA residual clause and the INA’s residual definition of “crime of violence.” The Tenth Circuit remarked that two circuits have addressed the identical issue and both determined that the INA residual definition was void for vagueness, and two other circuits addressed the issue in a criminal context and also determined the INA’s definition was unconstitutionally vague. The Tenth Circuit agreed with its sister circuits that the INA’s residual “crime of violence” definition is void for vagueness.
The Tenth Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Triplett on Thursday, June 2, 2016.
Residential Community Corrections Facility—Search—Reasonable Expectation of Privacy—Fourth Amendment—Fifth Amendment—Voluntary Statements.
Triplett was serving a sentence at a residential community corrections facility. A community justice officer conducted an unscheduled search of Triplett’s clothing while he was showering and discovered a vial of drugs. Triplett was convicted of possession of a controlled substance.
On appeal, Triplett contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress (1) the drugs found in his clothing, because this find resulted from an unconstitutional search, and (2) his statements to the police officer who questioned him about the drugs, because the statements should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and were involuntary. The court of appeals found that the search was proper because, as an inmate, Triplett had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his clothing while at the residential community corrections facility, and the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was reasonable, Triplett’s argument that the statements he made to the police officer were fruit of the poisonous tree failed.
Alternatively, Triplett contended that his statements to the police officer should have been suppressed under the Fifth Amendment as involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. The court disagreed, finding the statements were voluntary and admissible.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 v.