Opinion ID: 899502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thomas’s arrest and interrogation

Text: Daisy Thomas was arrested in July 2010 for fraudulent use of a stolen credit card, but police suspected Thomas was involved in, or knew something about, the robberies in which the credit cards were stolen. Thomas was handcuffed, taken into a small room, and interrogated by two law enforcement officers, Detective Neal and Detective Richardson. The Government claims Detectives Neal and Richardson brought Thomas into the interrogation room, advised her of the charges against her, and read Thomas her Miranda rights, at which point Thomas refused to sign the waiver and invoked her right to counsel. The Government claims the detectives then ended the interrogation. 2 Case: 12-11471 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 3 of 17 Video of the interrogation, however, tells a different story. The video shows Thomas invoked her right to counsel almost immediately upon entering the interrogation room, long before the police claim she did. To be precise, at 1 minute and 25 seconds of the video Thomas tells Detectives Neal and Richardson she is “not talking without a lawyer—no way.” Rather than ending the interrogation, however, the video shows the detectives continued interrogating Thomas, discussing the case, discussing the benefits of talking, and warning her of the consequences of not talking. In response to Thomas’s request for counsel Detective Richardson pointedly asked “[s]o then you just want to get charged with everything . . . without letting us hear your side of it?” Detective Richardson told Thomas her failure to talk without counsel would lead her to being “hemmed up with another felony”—by which Richardson meant Thomas “could potentially be charged with other offenses from other counties.” The detectives told Thomas “there are some additional things, some very serious charges” that could be placed on her, and that her “name has come up in some other investigations.” Detective Neal told Thomas they could help her out by making “a simple phone call” to the “state attorney” if she cooperated—which necessarily included talking to them without the benefit of the counsel she had requested. The video reveals it was not until Thomas invoked her right to counsel again that the police stopped 3 Case: 12-11471 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 4 of 17 questioning her, but not before “not[ing] in passing that they soon would be arresting” Thomas’s boyfriend. The video ends shortly thereafter. According to the Government, the detectives then moved Thomas from the interrogation room to a holding cell. During her 10 to 15 minutes in the holding cell, Thomas “yelled here and there” and muttered “a few choice swear words,” although she generally said “nothing pertinent.” At one point, however, Thomas yelled “I sure hope you have your facts straight because I wasn’t there. Uh, I hope you’ve done your work, I didn’t do anything.” Detective Richardson responded “we’ve done all our work” and “we’ve made a number of arrests” before naming Rykieth Levatte and Antione Harris as among those arrested. Thomas interrupted Richardson by denying any knowledge of Levatte and Harris, yelling that she did not fraternize with juvenile delinquents. B. The district court’s hearing and verbal order denying Thomas’s motion to suppress Thomas was indicted, along with five alleged co-conspirators, for conspiring to commit armed robberies, committing or aiding and abetting the commission of an armed robbery, and brandishing or aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm while committing an armed robbery. The indictment alleged Thomas participated in an armed robbery of the “All About You Hair Salon” on May 11, 4 Case: 12-11471 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 5 of 17 2010, and conspired to commit several others between May 11, and June 3, 2010. Prior to trial, Thomas moved to suppress the statements she made from the holding cell. The Government intended to use those statements to establish Thomas knew her alleged co-conspirators, Levatte and Harris, on the theory that she must have known them in order to know they were juveniles. Thomas’s motion to suppress argued the holding-cell statements were barred under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Specifically, the detectives violated the rule in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) by interrogating Thomas after she first requested counsel, and therefore her statements from the holding cell “were irreparably tainted by custodial interrogation.” The Government’s response motion argued Thomas’s false exculpatory remarks from the holding cell were “post-Miranda spontaneous statements” that “waived, or relinquished, [Thomas’s] Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.” At the hearing on Thomas’s motion to suppress, the Government entered the interrogation video into evidence but did not play it for the judge. On direct examination, Detective Richardson testified that once Thomas requested counsel, the interrogation ended and “[n]o questions were asked of [her].” Only later in the holding cell did Thomas spontaneously make the statements at issue, according to Richardson. 5 Case: 12-11471 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 6 of 17 Prior to cross-examination, the court permitted defense counsel to play the entire video. At that point, Richardson conceded that Thomas “immediately said she didn’t want to talk to [the police].” Richardson defended her continued interrogation of Thomas, however, by claiming she merely wanted Thomas “to have the educated information of what . . . the potential charges down the road were coming, and give her the opportunity to speak.” Richardson further testified, despite video evidence to the contrary, that her partner Detective Neal never “said anything about calling the prosecutor.” The district court orally delivered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court denied Thomas’s motion to suppress, reasoning that Thomas “knowingly waived her rights” when she “spontaneously initiated” discussion of the case in the holding cell. The court noted that although “the defendant had initially said that she did not wish to speak to law enforcement,” her statements from the holding cell were “spontaneous[]” and therefore “waived whatever rights she might have had to remain silent.” At trial, the Government offered Thomas’s statements both in Detective Richardson’s testimony as well as in closing argument. The jury subsequently convicted Thomas of the offenses charged in the indictment. This appeal followed.