Opinion ID: 586810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual Challenge

Text: 33 The district court comprehensively catalogued the various factors contributing to its decision, carefully comparing the circumstances here with those in other cases. See Order at 44-48. We find its analysis and conclusion unimpeachable. 34 Barone was approached by law enforcement officers four times before he began to discuss the Limoli homicide, including two contacts in which officers brought up the fact that he would be in substantial danger if he returned to Boston without cooperating. See Vujosevic v. Rafferty, 844 F.2d 1023, 1029 (3d Cir.1988) (suppression required where defendant questioned on four occasions about same crime, giving written statement only after officers essentially bluffed him into agreeing). On none of these occasions was he given full Miranda warnings. See United States v. Hsu, 852 F.2d 407, 410 (9th Cir.1988) (special concern expressed for the provision of a fresh set of warnings). The officers did not resume contact on any of these occasions by asking Barone if he had changed his mind about remaining silent concerning the Limoli homicide. Indeed, the district court found that on Saturday night, when Barone began to cooperate, Fleming and Dickinson used tactics intended to lower the defendant's guard against incriminating himself. See Order at 34. The reference to danger in Boston occurred well into that conversation, apparently when the officers sought to renew pressure on Barone to discuss the Limoli incident. 9 35 Although more than twenty-four hours passed between the last contact on Friday and the officers' arrival at the jail on Saturday--a factor in the government's favor--this lapse of time was offset by two other circumstances. First, during the intervening period, the government worked to develop information that later was used to pressure Barone into cooperating. Cf. Hsu, 852 F.2d at 412 (The record demonstrated that [the agent] exerted no pressure upon [the defendant] whatsoever. He merely read [defendant] his rights a second time, and [defendant] responded with a valid waiver.). 10 And, second, while the court did not find that the officers deliberately delayed Barone's arraignment from Friday afternoon to Monday morning, Order at 28, it did find that the prolonged detention magnified the inherent coercion of being held in custody, id. at 46. 11 36 In sum, the focus on danger, the failure to repeat warnings, the increasing length of incarceration, the officers' efforts to ingratiate themselves, and the number of encounters deliberately aimed at eliciting cooperation on the same crime are sufficient to support a finding that this was a case where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, ... by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind, Mosley, 423 U.S. at 105-06, 96 S.Ct. at 327-28. 37 We therefore affirm the district court's order suppressing the statements made by Barone about the Limoli murder on Saturday, July 23, 1988 through Monday, July 25, 1988.