Opinion ID: 760927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Post-Arrest Statements

Text: 12 Mr. Cooks was arrested in the early morning of October 29, 1982. Police advised him of his Miranda 1 rights upon arrest. Detectives attempted to question Mr. Cooks later that same day; Mr. Cooks refused to answer questions, however, and requested a lawyer. The following evening, October 30, a jailer informed Detective Belcher that Mr. Cooks wanted to speak to him. Detective Belcher again advised Mr. Cooks of his Miranda rights. Mr. Cooks signed a form acknowledging those rights and stating he had voluntarily summoned the detective and wished to provide information concerning Ms. Ridling's murder. Mr. Cooks then proceeded to make self-incriminating statements. Two days later, November 1, Mr. Cooks made additional statements after detectives questioned him regarding differences between his and Mr. Masters' initial statements. Again, Mr. Cooks affirmatively stated he understood his rights prior to providing additional information without legal representation. 2 13 In his habeas petition and brief on appeal to this court, Mr. Cooks claims his post-arrest statements were involuntary and acquired in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. He argues, without elaboration, his mental impairment and intellectual limits prevented him from comprehending the abstract concepts thrown at him by the detectives. He further asserts the detectives initiated an interrogation, promised him leniency, and threatened him with 'the needle' when he refused to talk. 14 The district court concluded Mr. Cooks' post-arrest statements were voluntary, and found, [b]ased upon a review of the particular facts and circumstances of this case, including [Mr.] Cooks' background and experience, Mr. Cooks knowingly waived his right to remain silent. We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 255, 142 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). However, the ultimate issue of voluntariness is subject to de novo review, considering the entire record and the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 1149. 15 Mr. Cooks' Fifth Amendment right to counsel attached the moment he requested an attorney. United States v. Johnson, 42 F.3d 1312, 1318 (10th Cir.1994) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1055, 115 S.Ct. 1439, 131 L.Ed.2d 318 (1995). However, if Mr. Cooks subsequently voluntarily initiated further communication with law enforcement officials, the law recognizes he effectively waived his previously invoked right to counsel. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-86, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045-46, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). This same rule applies in the Sixth Amendment context to evaluate a waiver of right to counsel after arraignment. Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 635-36, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986). A waiver is voluntary if the record demonstrates it (1) ... was a product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception, and (2) ... was made in full awareness of the nature of the right being waived and the consequences of waiving. Bautista, 145 F.3d at 1149. 16 By any account, the police Mirandized Mr. Cooks upon his arrest. Police officers testified they repeated Mr. Cooks' Miranda rights later that same day, prior to attempting to interrogate him at the police station. The officers recalled that Mr. Cooks refused at that time to make a statement and requested a lawyer. Detective Belcher ceased the interrogation at that point. This exercise of rights indicates Mr. Cooks understood from the beginning both the nature and consequences of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. 17 It is also undisputed that approximately twenty-four hours after police first attempted to question Mr. Cooks, after Detective Mahamed allegedly suggested Mr. Cooks would get the needle if he did not cooperate, and after he had been formally arraigned, Mr. Cooks told a jailor he wished to speak to Detective Belcher. Nothing in the record suggests police further pressured Mr. Cooks into giving a statement without a lawyer present, or that Mr. Cooks was intimidated by Detective Mahamed's alleged statements. Indeed, a full day had passed with no further attempt to speak to Mr. Cooks. When Detective Belcher came to the jail at Mr. Cooks' request, he carefully advised Mr. Cooks of his rights prior to any conversation. Mr. Cooks signed an Advice of Rights form indicating he had an eleventh grade education and affirming (1) he understood each component of his Miranda rights, (2) no pressure or coercion had been used against him, and (3) he nevertheless desired to make a statement and answer questions without an attorney present. Mr. Cooks does not claim Detective Belcher or anyone else made any promises, threats, or any further comments regarding the needle at this time. After Detective Belcher typed Mr. Cooks' responses to his questions, Mr. Cooks signed the two-page statement, attesting it was a true and accurate account of events and was given to the police freely and voluntarily, without fear of threat or promise of reward. Mr. Cooks signed another Advice of Rights form and typed statement after he spoke to Detectives Belcher and Mahamed on November 1. Detective Belcher testified that on both occasions Mr. Cooks appeared to understand his rights and did not appear to be under the influence of intoxicants. 18 Having independently reviewed the entire record and totality of the circumstances, we find no clear error in the district court's finding Mr. Cooks initiated his post-arrest, post-arraignment conversation with Detective Belcher, and there was no deception, intimidation or coercion sufficient to taint Mr. Cooks' waiver of rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, we hold Mr. Cooks' waiver of counsel and post-arrest statements were voluntary, knowing and intelligent, and therefore deny habeas relief on this ground. 19