Opinion ID: 1927659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Arrest, Interrogation, and Confession

Text: In the months following Shirley Person's homicide, the police uncovered no significant information about her assailant. They were unable to recover fingerprints from the car or the apartment, and could not locate a witness who was able to identify the assailant. Nor was Tammy Person able to make an identification. On February 7, 1983, however, the police linked two unexpended .380 rounds of ammunition, which they had found in Person's car after the murder, with a Sterling .380 semi-automatic pistol recovered from an alley behind appellant's house on November 22, 1982. [3] On February 16, 1983, at approximately 9:00 a.m., two United States Marshals and two officers of the MPD Special Operations Division arrested appellant for a violation of 18 U.S.C.App.II § 1202(a)(1)  possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon  pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Special Agent Joseph D'Angelillo coordinated the arrest. Also present, but not visible to appellant, was MPD Homicide Detective David Forbes, who was in charge of the investigation into the Person kidnapping and homicide. Following his arrest, appellant was transported to the homicide branch at MPD Headquarters for questioning. At approximately 9:52 a.m., Detective Forbes and Special Agent D'Angelillo entered the interrogation room where appellant had been placed, introduced themselves, and told appellant that he had been charged in United States District Court with a felony offense relating to his possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Special Agent D'Angelillo immediately followed these remarks by reading appellant his Miranda [4] warnings from a standard PD-47 card. [5] Appellant signed the PD-47 card, and indicated that he was willing to answer questions without an attorney being present. In response to D'Angelillo's questions about the gun, appellant admitted stealing the gun on July 29, 1982, from a parked car, transporting the firearm into the District of Columbia, and maintaining sole possession of the gun up until the time it was recovered by the MPD in November 1982. Forbes then began questioning appellant about the Person homicide. Appellant initially denied any knowledge of the events surrounding Shirley Person's homicide. Detective Forbes continued to question appellant about the homicide, and proceeded to mislead appellant about the strength of the evidence against him. Thus, Forbes told appellant, untruthfully, that both Tammy and the building superintendent had positively identified appellant as the perpetrator, and that three or four other people had seen appellant remove the stereo equipment from the Persons' apartment. Forbes also told appellant, again untruthfully, that appellant's fingerprints had been removed from Ms. Person's car with the use of lasers. He represented to appellant that appellant's potential sentence would likely be lowered if appellant confessed. Both Forbes and D'Angelillo also offered to talk to the United States Attorney's Office if appellant cooperated. Approximately twenty minutes into the officers' questioning of appellant, Lieutenant William Ritchie of the homicide branch turned on a videotape camera and began recording the interrogation. Before beginning the videotaping, Ritchie had called Forbes out of the interrogation room and told him that the interview would be taped; appellant, however, was not told that the videotaping was taking place. At the outset of the videotaping, Forbes re-advised appellant of all his Miranda rights by re-reading the PD-47 rights card. Appellant acknowledged that he had signed the waiver card and indicated orally that he understood his rights. Forbes also re-advised appellant that he was under arrest, and appellant responded that he understood. Over approximately the next hour, appellant continued to deny his involvement in the crime. He also began to give conflicting versions of what had transpired on the night in question. Thus, he explained the alleged presence of his fingerprints in Ms. Person's car by claiming that on the night of the incident he was walking to a friend's apartment when he passed a parked car and heard the voice of a little girl crying help, help. He claimed that he told someone to call the police and then attempted to open the trunk by locating the remote release button in the car's glove compartment. When he still could not open the trunk, he went home to get a screwdriver. By the time he returned, paramedics and police were on the scene and had already freed the little girl. Detective Forbes, in turn, continued to dispute appellant's version of the events and advised appellant that appellant had to tell the truth. Forbes also told appellant, untruthfully, that when appellant hit Shirley Person over the head with the gun, blood was left on the gun. The detective also repeated his earlier statements that Tammy could identify appellant as the man who abducted her and her mother. Appellant then changed his story and claimed that on the night of September 18, someone named Butch had admitted killing a girl and placing a child in a trunk. Appellant contended that Butch had asked him to move stereo equipment from the Persons' apartment to a car in the parking lot. At intervals, Forbes and D'Angelillo interrupted the interview to get appellant a soda or cigarettes, to accompany appellant to the bathroom, or to adjust appellant's handcuffs. [6] According to the interrogating officers' testimony at the pretrial hearing, at no time during the interrogation did appellant complain of feeling ill or being in pain. Nor did appellant appear to be intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. A turning point in the questioning occurred at approximately 11:30 a.m., when appellant asked to speak with Officer Joseph T. McCann, a detective he had known since 1974 or 1975, when McCann arrested appellant for a burglary. Forbes and D'Angelillo left the room and informed McCann that appellant wished to speak with him. They also told McCann that appellant was a suspect in the Person homicide investigation. Around this time, the videotape camera and recorder were turned off. McCann proceeded to speak with appellant for about twenty minutes. He urged appellant to tell the truth about the homicide. Appellant, in turn, told McCann that he wanted to tell him about it. After McCann informed him that appellant was prepared to confess, Forbes re-entered the interrogation room and the videotape recorder and camera were re-started. At approximately twelve noon, McCann gave incomplete Miranda warnings to appellant, [7] showed appellant the PD-47 card and confirmed with appellant that appellant had signed it. Appellant indicated for the third time that morning that he understood his rights. He also stated that he now was willing to give a statement. Appellant then made a full confession in which he admitted that he had abducted Shirley Person and Tammy Person for the purpose of robbing them; that he then had repeatedly stabbed Shirley Person because he realized that she had seen his face and he was scared that she might call the police; that he had returned to the Persons' apartment to steal the stereo equipment and televisions; and that he then abandoned Ms. Person's car with Tammy still locked in the trunk. The questioning and confession concluded at 12:30 p.m., at which time appellant was charged with the murder of Shirley Person. Prior to trial, appellant moved to have his confession suppressed at trial on the grounds that he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his rights to remain silent and have counsel present during questioning and that his statement was involuntary because it was the product of police trickery and deception. Appellant claimed that during the interrogation on February 16, he was severely beaten by the police officers conducting the interview, and that he confessed to the Person murder only in order to avoid being beaten further. He also maintained that at the time of his arrest he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. After holding a hearing on the motion to suppress, and viewing the videotapes of the interrogation and confession, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that the statements were voluntarily made, and that there was no trickery on the part of the police to get the [d]efendant to make an untrue statement. The trial court also specifically disbelieved appellant's testimony concerning physical abuse during the interrogation process. The confession was admitted at trial and appellant was convicted as charged.