Opinion ID: 714835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Alton Mills' Confession

Text: 26 At trial, the government introduced as substantive evidence against Mr. Mills a statement that he made following his arrest. The statement, in a redacted form, was admitted at trial through the testimony of Officer Robert Grapenthien, who arrested Mr. Mills and conducted the post-arrest interview. 5 The testimony was accompanied by a limiting instruction admonishing the jury that the officer's statements were admissible as evidence against Mr. Mills alone. Mr. Mills challenges the admission of this testimony and claims that it should have been suppressed because his statement was given in violation of his Miranda rights. A hearing was held in response to Mr. Mills' motion to suppress the statement. 27 The evidence from the suppression hearing indicated that, pursuant to a warrant, Mr. Mills was arrested at approximately 5:30 a.m. on September 7, 1993. He was then placed in a squad car to be transported to the Federal Building in Chicago for questioning. While Mr. Mills was in the back seat of the squad car, one of the arresting officers read Mr. Mills his Miranda rights from a preprinted form. He then asked Mr. Mills if he understood those rights, and Mr. Mills indicated that he did. The officer then read a waiver of those rights and asked Mr. Mills if he would be willing to sign the waiver. Mr. Mills refused to sign. 6 The officer noted the refusal on the waiver form. 28 At the suppression hearing, Mr. Mills testified that, during the drive to the Federal Building, Officer Grapenthien told him that he was facing a potentially severe sentence--twenty years to life imprisonment. Officer Grapenthien also recalled the drive to the Federal Building in his testimony. He stated that he asked Mr. Mills if he knew the nicknames that his co-conspirators had for him; he told Mr. Mills that they had been referring to him as Big Dumbo behind his back. 29 At approximately 8:00 a.m., after Mr. Mills had been transported to the Federal Building and processed, he was interviewed. Mr. Mills testified that he was re-Mirandized by one of the interviewing officers and that he understood his Miranda rights. However, during the interview, Mr. Mills was not presented with the waiver form nor was he asked again whether he wished to sign it. During the interview, Officer Grapenthien showed Mr. Mills a transcript of a telephone conversation between his co-conspirators to confirm that they were calling him Big Dumbo in his absence. It was during this interview that Mr. Mills gave the incriminating statement. 30 The magistrate judge denied Mr. Mills' motion to suppress the statement, and the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and findings. Mr. Mills submits that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statement. We review the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error. United States v. Covarrubias, 65 F.3d 1362, 1368 (7th Cir.1995). We give particular deference to the court that had the opportunity to hear the testimony and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. United States v. Vega, 72 F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir.1995). 31 Mr. Mills' first contention is that, at the time he initially refused to sign the waiver of rights form, he invoked his right to remain silent. He submits that the assertion of his right was not scrupulously honored and that he was subjected to further questioning in violation of his right to remain silent. Thus, because the interview was conducted following the invocation of this right, the statement was taken in violation of Miranda and ought to have been suppressed. The magistrate judge determined that the statement Mr. Mills made, when he was presented with the waiver form in the back of the squad car, did not amount to a clear assertion of his right to remain silent. Rather, the magistrate judge described his remarks as the statement of somebody who is angry about what is happening to them, which makes a certain amount of sense under these circumstances. Sent. Tr. 140. 32 We believe that the magistrate judge's characterization of the statement was, on this record, a permissible one. Mr. Mills' response of I don't got nothing to say, standing alone, could be construed as an invocation of his right to remain silent. Yet, when placed in the context of his other comments, the alternate interpretation--that it was merely an angry response to the form in front of him--is also possible. Given these two possible interpretations, the magistrate judge's determination that Mr. Mills' statement, when considered in context, was not a clear, unambiguous assertion of his right to remain silent cannot be disturbed by this court. 33 Earlier case law from this circuit took the view that, when it is unclear whether a suspect has invoked his Miranda rights, the police have the obligation to cease questioning immediately, except for questions designed to clarify the ambiguity. See United States v. D'Antoni, 856 F.2d 975, 980-81 (7th Cir.1988). Although this circuit has not had a recent opportunity to revisit the precise issue, the circuits and state supreme courts that have addressed the matter in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), have held that an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent does not require that the police cease all questioning. See Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1100 (11th Cir.1995) (Law enforcement officers are not required to terminate an interrogation unless the invocation of the right to remain silent is unambiguous.); United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir.1995) (We consider the defendant's statements as a whole to determine whether they indicate an unequivocal decision to invoke the right to remain silent.) (citing United States v. Thompson, 866 F.2d 268, 272 (8th Cir.1989)); Minnesota v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277, 285 (Minn.1995) (reasoning that the right to counsel is protected with a second layer of procedural protection, as mandated by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and because fewer procedural safeguards attend to the right to remain silent, it follows that the Constitution does not require such a clarifying approach when an accused ambiguously or equivocally attempts to invoke his right to remain silent); Vermont v. Bacon, 658 A.2d 54 (Vt.1995) (holding that, without doubt, the holding in Davis applies to the right to remain silent), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 117, 133 L.Ed.2d 67 (1995); see also Evans v. Demosthenes, 902 F.Supp. 1253 (D.Nev.1995) (predicting that Ninth Circuit will adopt same approach). Upon reflection, we have no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by these courts, although we believe that the matter requires a somewhat more plenary explanation. 34 In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court set forth a prophylactic rule for the protection of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In terms now familiar to all members of the bench and bar, the Court held that, when a person in custody is interrogated, he must be informed of his right to remain silent and of his right to have counsel present during an interrogation. Id. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2568-69, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the Supreme Court characterized an accused's request for an attorney as a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, requiring that all interrogation cease. In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the Court, quoting this language from Fare v. Michael C., held that a request for counsel requires that all attempts to interrogate the defendant cease. Against this backdrop, the Court later ruled in Davis that the Edwards rule--requiring the total cessation of all questioning--was not applicable when the defendant's request for counsel was ambiguous. 7 Rather, the Court further ruled that, in the face of an equivocal request for counsel, it is not necessary to cease all questioning. Indeed, the Court further stated that, although the use of clarifying questions would be a good practice, further interrogation need not be limited to such questions. Davis therefore makes it clear that it is only the unequivocal request for counsel, what Fare termed a per se invocation of the Fifth Amendment right, that requires all interrogation to cease. If an ambiguous request for counsel--a request that, if it were more clear, would amount to a per se invocation of Fifth Amendment rights--does not require the cessation of all questioning, we do not believe that Davis permits our imposing such a rule on any other ambiguous invocation of the right to silence. Thus, in light of the ambiguous nature of Mr. Mills' initial statement when presented with the waiver form, the investigating officers were not barred from questioning him later. Mr. Mills cannot challenge the admission of his statement on this basis. 8 35 Mr. Mills makes an additional argument with respect to the statement introduced against him. He submits that the government never demonstrated that he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The magistrate judge found that Mr. Mills waived his Miranda rights orally, even though he never signed a written waiver. The magistrate judge did not determine that there was an explicit waiver, in the sense of saying, I don't want to sign the form but I am willing to talk. Tr. 136. Rather, the magistrate judge determined that Mr. Mills' subsequent conduct indicated he validly waived his Miranda rights. She noted that Mr. Mills had been read his rights twice and, according to his own testimony, understood them. Furthermore, Mr. Mills testified that he answered some of the officers' questions, but not others--a factor indicating that Mr. Mills was in enough control of his circumstances to make his own choices about what he want[ed] to say and what he [did not] want to say. Tr. 139. In addition, the court found that Mr. Mills was an intelligent person ... who is experienced in the criminal justice system. Tr. 138. On two prior occasions when Mr. Mills had been arrested and had not been Mirandized, he had refused to give a statement. 36 Whether a person in custody knowingly and voluntarily waives his Miranda rights depends upon the totality of the circumstances. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 724, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); United States v. Betts, 16 F.3d 748, 763 (7th Cir.1994). A waiver does not need to be made expressly, but may be inferred from the defendant's understanding of his rights coupled with a course of conduct reflecting his desire to give up his right to remain silent and have the counsel of an attorney. Id.; North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 1757, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). In this case, Mr. Mills himself testified that he was read his Miranda rights twice and that he understood them. He also testified, upon questioning by the magistrate judge, that he answered some of the questions posed to him by the interviewing officers, but not others. We agree with the conclusion of the district court that Mr. Mills clearly understood his rights and understood that he did not have to respond to the officers' questions; indeed, he selectively chose not to answer some of the questions that were put to him. Furthermore, as the magistrate noted, Mr. Mills had prior experience with law enforcement officials, see Betts, 16 F.3d at 763, and had twice before exercised his right to remain silent--even without having been Mirandized. 37 In two respects, the evidence reveals that the interviewing officers, Officer Grapenthien in particular, sought to persuade Mr. Mills to cooperate with them. First, Officer Grapenthien made certain that Mr. Mills was aware that he was possibly facing a life sentence in prison. Second, it was suggested to Mr. Mills that his co-conspirators, by using the nickname Big Dumbo, made fun of him behind his back. The district court, in accepting the report of the magistrate judge, determined that these two factors did not transform the interview into a coercive atmosphere. There was no evidence of trickery or deceit, and Mr. Mills demonstrated that he was aware of his rights and his actions. Given the applicable standard of review, we cannot substitute our judgment for that determination. We therefore find no error in the conclusion that Mr. Mills voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The district court did not err by permitting Mr. Mills' statement to be admitted as evidence against him at trial. 38