Opinion ID: 4556238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Custodial Interviews

Text: On March 2, 2020, Cooper was arrested in Bay City. (5/5/11 TR., R. 5.13, Page ID 806; 5/6/11 Tr., R. 5.14, Page ID 820). Detectives Wehby and Scott Rzeppa began Cooper’s first custodial interview at approximately 5:10 pm that day (3/2/10 Tr., R. 1.5, Page ID 119.).2 They advised him of his constitutional rights, which he waived both verbally and in writing. (5/5/11 Tr., R. 5.13, Page ID 807; Appellee’s Br. appendices A and B, R. 5.19, Page ID 1226, 1228). Thereafter, through the course of the interview, Cooper admitted to having gone with several other individuals on three occasions to the house where McKillop’s murder had occurred. The murder, according to Cooper, took place on the third occasion. (3/2/10 Tr., R. 1.5, Page ID 12324, 135, 143). Cooper explained that the objective of the visits was to encourage Jenkins to repay the money he owed to Anderson. This was intended to be accomplished by tying Jenkins up and “maybe beat[ing] the shit out of him[.]” (Id., Page ID 123-25). On the first two visits, Jenkins was not there. Jenkins was not home during the third visit either, but unfortunately McKillop was. During the murder Cooper claimed that he had remained outside on the front porch, serving as a lookout as his peers entered the house. (Id., Page ID 128). According to Cooper he never entered the house. He further claimed that, while on the porch, he had heard argument followed by gunfire from inside the home. (Id., Page ID 128-29). A few days later, he learned that the victim had been the wrong person. (Id., Page ID 133) The detectives were skeptical that Cooper had told them everything. To “get him to admit his further involvement if he thought that we had some more information on him,” the 2Cooper’s first custodial interview was recorded and played for the jury in full. (5/5/11 TR. R. 5.14, Page ID 806-07, 09; 5/6/1111 Tr. R. 5.14, Page ID 812, 820). No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 7 detectives raised the specter that Cooper’s DNA may have been found on the victim. (5/6/11 Tr., R. 5.14, Page ID 821; 3/2/10 Tr., R. 1.5, Page ID 186-202). Cooper resisted this tactic, however, and insisted that he had stayed outside the house throughout the evening. (Id.) Approximately three hours into the interview, Cooper then expressed exasperation that the detectives did not believe his story: “See, that’s why I don’t want to talk to you guys about this because who do I have to collaborate [sic] anything I have to say?” (Id., Page ID 193). Shortly afterwards, the interview ended.
Following the first interview on March 2, 2010, Cooper was transferred to the Farmington Hills Police Department, where at approximately 10:30 p.m. his second custodial interview began. The detectives started by asking if Cooper remembered the Miranda waiver form he had signed in Bay City, and advising him that it still covered their conversation. Cooper nodded affirmatively to both statements. (3/2/10 Tr., R. 5.18, Page ID 1032.) Then he was questioned, but he continued to deny shooting McKillop and reiterated the version of events that he had conveyed earlier in the day. Approximately one hour into the interview, Detective Wehby once more referenced the topic of DNA, telling Cooper, “[l]et’s get it out if we’ve go[t] to start giving explanations as to why those might be your hairs and those might be your DNA on the victim inside the house.” (Id., Page ID 1043.) Cooper pushed back against this line of questioning, though, and he continued to insist that he had not entered the house. (Id., Page ID 1044). Shifting tactics, Wehby then hypothesized that Cooper had been inside the house when someone else unexpectedly pulled a gun. Cooper shook his head no. (Id., Page ID 1047.) “Is that what happened?” Wehby asked. “No,” answered Cooper. The suspect stood up, but Detective Rzeppa quickly ordered him to sit back down. Cooper then asked to be taken back to his cell and said that he needed to use the restroom. Wehby responded that there was not a restroom nearby and that “[i]f you don’t wanna talk to us fine, we’re gonna stare at you all night.” Relenting, Cooper resumed discussion with the detectives. No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 8 Wehby now explained to Cooper that the evidence would look unfavorable at trial, unless “we get ahead of the curve, and we can admit[/]explain why your DNA or hair may possibly be on the victim or that cord then we can explain it.” (Id., Page ID 1049-50). Wehby suggested that Cooper could potentially be portrayed as the “fall guy,” who just happened to be at the scene of the crime when someone else shot McKillop. (Id., Page ID 1049-50). At that point, Cooper stated, “I have nothing further to say,” (id.), and when the detectives posed additional questions, he emphasized his refusal to speak more by thanking the detectives for their time and reiterating that he was “[n]ot talking anymore.” (Id., PageID 1051.) But, Wehby tried again to get Cooper to confess: “One more question, Wil[bern]. And we’ll go to your cell. Did you shoot and kill this guy?” Cooper replied, “no.” (Id., Page ID 1052). The interviewed ended at approximately 11:53 p.m. (Id.) At no point during the entire interview did Cooper invoke his right to counsel.
At around 9 a.m. the next day, March 3, 2010, Cooper met with the detectives for his third custodial interview. (3/3/10 Tr. R. 1.6, Page ID 205, 205-07). Wehby again showed Cooper the Miranda form he had signed the previous day and asked if he remembered it. (Id.) Cooper responded affirmatively, and the detective said the form was “still in effect.” (Id.)3 Wehby then pivoted to the main objective of the conversation: the investigators wanted to get Cooper’s “story” a third time “to make sure that we got your story that you’re sticking with. . . . OK? We want to make sure that we got, we got it down right. That we don’t make any mistakes on your part . . . on your part or our part. Ok?” To this, Cooper replied: “Alright.” (3/3/10 Tr., R. 1.6, Page ID 205-06). Then, after some small talk about the quality of the police department food, Cooper abruptly stated: “Alright, I guess I’m gonna try this.” (Id., Page ID 207.) At that point, he proceeded to discuss the McKillop murder with the detectives. As Cooper launched into details of the story, he initially remained consistent in his explanation that he had stood on the front porch throughout the entirety of the shooting. (Id., 3During trial, the prosecutor emphasized that the video footage from the third custodial interview reflects that Cooper looked at the form and nodded. (See Pros. Br., R. 5.19, Page ID 1214.) No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 9 Page ID 212.) But then, Wehby interrupted Cooper to explain the plausibility problems with that story. To this, Cooper replied: “I think I’m done talking at this time. I’ve got a lot to think about. I’ve gotta use the bathroom.” ((Id., Page ID 228.) Wehby responded, “that’s fine and I understand that,” though he reminded Cooper that his arraignment was in three hours. (Id.). Thereafter, the detectives asked Cooper what he wanted to do. (Id.) Cooper responded simply that he did not wish to “sit the rest of life in prison for something I didn’t do.” (Id.) The conversation then took another shift, with discussion of Cooper’s challenging upbringing and life circumstances, as well as the pain McKillop’s family must have felt during the years when the investigation went cold. (Id., Page ID 228-32). Cooper acknowledged this pain and lamented the situation. (Id., Page ID 232). The discussion continued for a bit more, followed by a restroom break. (Id., Page ID 236). After questioning resumed the detectives told Cooper he could help himself and the victim’s family by disclosing more about the crime. Cooper responded with, “I’m not saying anything,” and “I’m not saying any more.” (Id., Page ID 245-48, 250.) But Wehby persisted, asking Cooper if he “want[ed] to talk about this anymore?” Cooper answered, “Not right now.” (Id., Page ID 245.) Wehby then reminded Cooper that time was running out, to which Cooper responded, “Yeah.” (Id.) The questioning continued, with Cooper offering more answers to the officers. (See id., Page ID 245-47.) However, when discussion veered back towards the events that took place on the night of McKillop’s murder, Cooper again said, “I’m not saying anything.” (Id., Page ID 247-48). Yet the meeting continued. Eventually Cooper admitted that he had witnessed McKillop’s murder and that he knew who had tied him up and shot him, but denied that he was the one who had done it. (Id., Page ID 248.) When asked who the murderer was, however, Cooper dodged the question, declaring: “I’m not saying no more.” (Id., Page ID 248, 250, 254.) Upon further discussion, Cooper suddenly appeared as if he had had enough of the interrogation. He accused the detectives of having already concluded that he was the murderer. (Id., Page ID 258, 261). At that point, he made a number of declarations indicative of his desire to be arraigned. (Id., Page ID 258, 261). No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 10 The questioning, however, still did not stop. Finally, Cooper admitted that he had, in fact, entered Jenkins’ home on the night of the murder. Once he did, as Cooper further explained, he had thrown an extension cord to Mark Bollis in order to tie up McKillop. Together, he and Bollis forced McKillop to the floor, where Dennis McKiddie shot McKillop in the head. (AT Br., R. 9, Page ID 20; 5/6/11 TR., p. 44-48.)