Opinion ID: 748401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Testimony of Howard

Text: 31 Similarly, the defendant argues that the testimony of Howard should be suppressed because such testimony is derived from fruit of the poisonous tree. As discussed above, the district court found that the statements which Gravens made to Officers Noack and Crone on July 8, 1994, were not voluntary. The court noted that since Gravens' statements were involuntary, they could only be used for purposes of impeachment and that evidence derived from the statements was fruit of the poisonous tree. 32 Recall that after Gravens was apprehended by police on July 8, 1994, he was questioned by Noack and Crone while riding in the back of the police car. During the interrogation, Gravens informed Noack and Crone that Howard was involved in the burglary and that two firearms taken in the burglary could be found in Howard's house. The officers dropped Gravens off at jail and then drove to Howard's house to question him about the burglary. The officers found Howard asleep and intoxicated. After noticing the stolen guns beneath his bed, Howard was taken to jail, where he was informed of his Miranda rights. After some prodding from Gravens, Howard confessed to the burglary. 33 The defendant claims that Howard's confession and testimony is not admissible because it is fruit of the illegal interrogation that took place in the back of the police car. The defendant argues that Howard's testimony was discovered as an immediate and direct result of the illegal interrogation in the back of the police car on July 8. 34 While the trial court fully accepted the defendant's reasoning on this point, it additionally found that the police had learned about Howard's alleged involvement in the burglary of Beer's residence from the defendant on May 3, 1994, during the time when he was being interrogated at the Paulding County jail. At this time, Gravens had been properly Mirandized and, therefore, his statements were not subject to the taint that existed during the July 8 interrogation. In fact, the May 3 statement took place more than two months prior to the tainted interrogation. The trial judge found that from the time of the May 3 interrogation, the eventual interview with Howard was a logical investigative step. The trial court held that [a]lthough Howard was not interviewed until after the statements made by defendant on July 8, 1994, this does not alter the fact that the government had an untainted and independent source (defendant's May 3, 1994 statements at the Paulding County jail) that Howard was involved. (emphasis added). 35 In so holding, the trial court embraced the Supreme Court's reasoning in Nix: [t]he independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. 467 U.S. at 443, 104 S.Ct. at 2508. Similar to the inevitable discovery rule, the independent source doctrine provides that the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the police in the same, not a worse, position than they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred. Id., at 443, 104 S.Ct. at 2509. (emphasis added). When the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation. Id. This Court has often held that independently discovered and untainted evidence will be admitted in certain circumstances as an exception to the exclusionary rule. In United States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309, 1317 (7th Cir.1993), we held that the fact that an application for a search warrant contained information obtained through unlawful entry did not perforce indicate that improper information affected the magistrate's decision to issue a warrant and thus vitiate applicability of the independent source doctrine. Rather, the warrant was lawful and the independent source doctrine applied where the application contained probable cause apart from the improper information. Id.; see also United States v. Hartmann, 958 F.2d 774, 792 (7th Cir.1992) (independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that had been obtained from defendant while he was cooperating with the Government before he breached his agreement to cooperate, even if the Government violated an alleged agreement to confer immunity on defendant; the Government demonstrated that the evidence would have been discovered through sources independent of defendant's cooperation). 36 In this case, the Government demonstrated that the evidence in question was obtained from a source independent of Gravens' tainted July 8 confession. On May 3, Gravens admitted to Crone and Noack that he had stolen firearms from Beer's residence, and at that time, he implicated Howard as his accomplice. The police had probable cause to arrest Gravens at this point for the burglary of Beer's home. They also had reasonable suspicion to question Howard about the burglary. However, after speaking with prosecutors, the officers decided to use Gravens as a drug informant. Naturally, the officers delayed their interview of Howard until after the defendant had completed his service as a drug informant, but it was inevitable, even without defendant's July 8 statement, that Howard eventually would be interviewed concerning the Beer burglary. We hold that the Government had untainted and independent evidence that Howard was involved in the burglary, and that this evidence would have been pursued as part of a standard criminal investigation. The independent nature of the source kept Howard's testimony free of taint as fruit of the poisonous tree. 37 The defendant raises several concerns regarding the use of the May 3 statement. Initially, the defendant argues that he did not affirmatively mention that Howard was an accomplice during the May 3 interrogation in Paulding County. In fact, the district court specifically mentioned in its Memorandum of Decision and Order, dated March 13, 1996, the fact that the defendant may have named his accomplice, John Howard, on May 3 at the Paulding County jail. (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the trial judge, after careful examination of the hearing record, ultimately determined that the weight of evidence pointed to the fact that Howard's name had been mentioned during the May 3 interrogation. 38 Upon further review of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing of January 20, 1996, it is clear to the Court that the preponderance of the evidence shows that defendant did in fact mention his accomplice during the initial question [sic] at the Ohio jail. While both Noack and Crone testified that they thought or believed that Howard's name was mentioned during the first interview, on direct questioning by the Court, Noack testified that Howard was mentioned during the first interview. Defendant, while testifying that he did not tell them the locations of the firearms during that interview, did not indicate that he had not mentioned Howard as an accomplice. The preponderance of the evidence therefore is that defendant told the officers about Howard's complicity during the first interview at the Paulding County jail, after defendant had been given his Miranda warnings. 39 (emphasis added). 40 After an analysis of the record, this Court holds that a preponderance of the evidence supports the fact that Howard's name was in fact mentioned by the defendant during the interrogation at the Paulding County jail. Detective Noack was questioned carefully on this issue, and his answers were unequivocal: Q. 'What did [Gravens] reveal to you [during the May 3 interrogation] regarding Mr. Howard?' A. 'That John was with him.' Q. 'That Mr. Howard was with him at the time he committed the burglary?' A. 'That's correct.'  Crone was asked the same question, to which he responded that he thought that Gravens had mentioned Howard's name. Crone and Noack therefore had an independent and untainted confession from the defendant sufficient to warrant the criminal investigation of Howard. 41 The defendant also argues that the time gap between the May 3 interrogation and the tainted July 8 interrogation proves that the police only learned about Howard's involvement on July 8. Otherwise, the defendant argues, the police would have interviewed Howard earlier. On the contrary, we believe the two month time lag between the May 3 discovery of Howard's involvement and the July 8 visit to Howard's house is only proper in light of the Government's desire to proceed with its narcotics investigation using Gravens as an informant. As the letter from Gravens' girlfriend suggests, during the summer of 1994, the Decatur criminal community was highly suspicious of Gravens' activities, and a police interview concerning the Beer burglary in which Gravens was noted as a key suspect would only have made his task of attracting narcotics sales more difficult. 42 Finally, the defendant claims that but for Gravens' prodding, Howard would not have confessed to the burglary after he had been brought to the jail. This argument is plainly irrelevant. Gravens had already confessed that he and Howard had committed the burglary during the May 3 interrogation. No one can be certain whether or not Gravens' prodding was instrumental in obtaining the similar confession from Howard. Such conjecture is pure speculation at best. 43 On this second issue, we hold that the Government learned of Howard's alleged involvement in the burglary of Beer's residence during the May 3 jailhouse interrogation. Despite the tainted nature of the July 8 interrogation, we are of the opinion that the evidence of Howard's involvement in the burglary should not be suppressed as it was obtained from a source independent of the illegal conduct on July 8. It would be proper for us to reverse the district court only if we found its reasoning clearly erroneous. As stated previously in this Court, the district court's factual finding should be overturned only if that finding strike[s] us as wrong with the force of a five-week old, unrefrigerated dead fish. Parts & Elec. Motors v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir.1988). This Court believes firmly that no error has been made here.IV. CONCLUSION 44 We have no doubt that the trial court's ruling on these two issues was appropriate. The Government had in its possession, prior to the illegal interrogation of July 8, 1994, information that conclusively established the make and date of acquisition of the stolen firearms. The expert witness, a BATF agent could provide his opinion regarding whether the firearms were made in the State of Indiana or must have moved in interstate commerce to reach Indiana. The FTR for the Ithaca shotgun could easily have been traced by the witness through a careful but uncomplicated year-to-year search of the firearms vendor's records. Therefore, the inevitable discovery rule applies, and the district court properly determined that the agent's expert testimony should not be suppressed. 45 Similarly, the Government learned about Howard's involvement in the burglary of Beer's residence from the defendant on May 3, 1994. This revelation took place two months prior to the illegal interrogation on July 8. Since this earlier statement is an adequate independent source of evidence linking Howard to the crime, Howard's subsequent statements concerning the crime should not be suppressed, despite the two month delay between the defendant's statement on May 3 and the arrest of Howard on July 8. The police had every right to ultimately interview Howard; the delay was merely a reasonable time allowance for the defendant to complete his service as a drug informant. 46 AFFIRMED.