Opinion ID: 866987
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ramey’s Argument

Text: Ramey asserts that the government manifestly intended to comment on his silence when, at trial, it elicited from FBI Special Agent Benjamin Stone testimony regarding Ramey’s non-production of certain documents. The complained-of testimony related to an interview Stone conducted with Ramey during the execution of a search warrant on April 20, 2004. The colloquy between Stone and the prosecutor proceeded as follows: Prosecutor: While you were at the address, conducting the search on Dawnbrook, did you have an opportunity to talk with Mr. Ramey? Stone: I did. Prosecutor: All right. And before you talked to him, did you advise him of any—of his constitutional rights? Stone: We did. Prosecutor: And did he agree to voluntarily talk with you? Stone: Yes, he did. Prosecutor: Did he indicate to you how long he had lived at [the address where the search took place]? Stone: Since 1987. Prosecutor: Okay. And since 1987? Stone: Yes, sir. Prosecutor: Did he indicate what type business he had? Stone: He—current interests at the time included the acquisition of gold mines, and he had what he called an “interest” in a gold mine. Prosecutor: Okay. And did you indicate—ask him what interests—where and what interest did he have in a gold mine? Stone: He wouldn’t tell me the name of what it was; but he said he concluded several purchase agreements for gold mines and that he was currently in negotiations for several others in Canada, Alaska, and the contiguous United States. Prosecutor: And did he provide you any record or documents indicating whether those were legitimate contracts or not? 7 Case: 12-20044 Document: 00512235749 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 No. 12-20044 Stone: No. Prosecutor: Did you ask for it? Stone: I did. Prosecutor: Did he provide them? Stone: No, he did not. At that point, Ramey’s attorney objected and requested to approach the bench. The court dismissed the jury, after which a lengthy discussion ensued wherein Ramey’s attorney moved for a mistrial. As he does on appeal, Ramey argued that his refusal to produce documents was an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, and that the government unconstitutionally attempted to elicit testimony about that refusal. In arguing on appeal that a mistrial was necessary, Ramey further contends that the prosecutor’s manifest intent to comment on his silence was evident from the fact that a similar scenario had played out in an earlier prosecution of Ramey. There, in a separate case arising from the government’s investigation into Ramey’s fraudulent activities, Ramey was tried and convicted of passport fraud and obstruction of justice. Ramey I, 2008 WL 4582089, at . At trial in Ramey I, Stone testified as follows about the April 20, 2004, interview he conducted with Ramey: Prosecutor: Now I’m going to ask you a series of questions and I want you to be careful of your answers. All right? Stone: All right. Prosecutor: Did you discuss business records with—of Manhattan Gold with Mr. Ramey? Stone: We asked if he would be willing to provide us with some of those records about Manhattan Gold, and he decided not to. Id. at  (emphasis omitted). Although Ramey argued on appeal that this testimony violated his Fifth Amendment privilege, the Ramey I court affirmed his conviction, concluding that Stone’s statement that investigators “asked 8 Case: 12-20044 Document: 00512235749 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 No. 12-20044 Ramey to provide them business records ‘but he decided not to’ does not violate the Fifth Amendment” because, inasmuch as “the prosecutor actually cautioned Stone to ‘be careful of your answers,’” the prosecutor “clearly did not manifestly intend to elicit Stone’s response.”2 Id. at . Despite this holding, Ramey now argues that because the testimony in his second trial largely mirrored the statement elicited from the same witness in Ramey I, the government unambiguously demonstrated its manifest intent to comment on his silence.