Opinion ID: 2002592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Post-Arrest Statement

Text: On November 17, 1982, more than fifteen months after Berrios' death, a grand jury indicted Antonio and Geremias for second-degree murder while armed. This was the first formal charge against Antonio in connection with this case, since he had never been arrested or otherwise placed in police custody. A notice of arraignment was sent to Antonio (at his Mount Pleasant Street address) and to his newly appointed attorney the following day, advising them that arraignment was scheduled for December 1, 1982. Because Antonio by that time had fled to El Salvador, however, he failed to appear for the arraignment, and the court issued a bench warrant. Antonio remained a fugitive for more than two years until he was arrested in California on December 15, 1984. Metropolitan Police Detective Rocco Cianciotti was sent to Fresno, California, to attend Antonio's extradition hearing. Before the hearing, Cianciotti was told by Antonio's court-appointed attorney that he would not be able to talk to him [Antonio] in Fresno. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Cianciotti violated the admonition not to talk to Antonio in Fresno. After the extradition proceedings were concluded, Antonio was brought back to the District of Columbia on January 25, 1985, and upon his arrival he was taken to an interview room in the office of the Homicide Branch at police headquarters. He was seated at a table when Detective Cianciotti entered the room to process him, a procedure which included giving Miranda warnings [11] and obtaining background information. It soon became apparent to Cianciotti, however, that he would be unable to complete the processing because he was not proficient in Spanish. Cianciotti therefore left the room and enlisted the aid of Detective Daniel Villars, a native of Honduras who did speak Spanish. When Cianciotti returned, Villars was with him. Villars read Antonio his Miranda rights from the front of a Form PD-47-B, a standard police form containing the Miranda rights in Spanish. When Villars finished reading the front of the card, he turned it over and asked Antonio the four questions on the back. After Antonio orally responded to the four questions, Villars handed the card to Antonio and asked him to read the front and back, write out a yes or no answer to each question, and then sign the card. Antonio did as he was asked. The four questions and Antonio's verbal and written responses to each of them (here translated) were as follows: (1) Have your rights been read to you? Yes. (2) Do you understand your rights? Yes. (3) Do you wish to answer the questions now? No. (4) Are you willing to answer questions now, without an attorney present? No. Antonio told Villars that he was not going to answer any questions on the advice of his brother's lawyer. Villars was not translating Antonio's responses verbatim for Cianciotti, but Villars did inform Cianciotti that Antonio refused to answer any questions without an attorney present because that was what his brother's lawyer had advised him to do. Cianciotti then told Villars that they should move on to the second phase of the processing: completion of the arrest report, Form PD-163, also known as a booking form. As Cianciotti read aloud the questions from the PD-163, asking Antonio his name, address, date of birth, social security number, employment history, and names and addresses of relatives and friends, Villars translated each question into Spanish. Villars also translated Antonio's answers into English for Cianciotti, who typed them on the form. The bottom of the PD-163 contains a blank space headed Defendant's Version. When Cianciotti got to this part of the PD-163, he asked Villars to ask Antonio if he wanted to tell his side of the story. When Villars asked the question, Antonio responded by refusing to answer any more questions asked by Cianciotti. Villars translated this to Cianciotti, who replied, Fine, that is his right. He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Villars told Antonio what Cianciotti had said. With the PD-163 now completed, Villars got up from his chair and began to walk toward the door. At that moment Antonio called out to Villars, saying, Wait, I'm going to tell you what happened. Villars walked back to the table, and Antonio recounted, in narrative form without any questioning from Villars, what had happened on the night of the stabbing. Antonio told Villars that he was alone in his apartment when he heard a knock on the front door. He opened the door and saw Berrios standing there with a knife. Berrios tried to stab him with the knife, forcing him to retreat through a hallway and into his bedroom with Berrios in pursuit. Antonio told Villars that he somehow managed to take the knife away from Berrios, and, as the two of them stood near the bedroom window, he stabbed Berrios once with the knife. The next thing he knew, Berrios had fallen out the window. This statement was not recorded on the PD-163. At trial the government sought the court's permission to introduce this statement to impeach Antonio's credibility because it was inconsistent with his testimony on direct examination. After a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the court found that Antonio's Miranda rights had been violated but that he had given his statement voluntarily. Having made this finding, the court ruled that it would allow the statements to be introduced into evidence, but only for the purpose of impeachment. [12] Villars then testified about the contents of the statement. In the court's final charge, the jurors were instructed that they were not to consider Antonio's statement to Villars and Cianciotti for its truth, but only as a means of evaluating the truthfulness of Antonio's trial testimony.