Opinion ID: 771185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of McKee and Flota Tape-recorded Statements

Text: 10 Two tape-recordings of McKee were admitted into evidence. Both recordings were done with McKee's knowledge and consent after he had been given the Miranda warning and waived his Miranda rights. The first recording took place on October 16, 1986, when McKee went to the Moses Lake Police Department to file a missing persons report on his wife. After approximately forty minutes of questioning (not on tape), McKee admitted to being present when his wife was murdered. McKee then proceeded to answer questions about the night of his wife's murder and his role. 11 According to McKee, Whelchel told McKee that he wanted to kill Margo and Whelchel organized events leading up to the murder. McKee also stated that Whelchel struck Margo on the head with a wooden table leg and then stabbed her. McKee said that he ran away from the scene with Hughes after the first blow and stayed at the top of a hill for about ninety minutes. McKee returned to the scene after Massey came up the hill and told him that Whelchel and Flota were taking care of it. McKee repeatedly denied any involvement in the actual killing, even when police used the ruse that they knew McKee struck Margo with a rock. 12 The next day, the police interrogated McKeeagain, recording the session. McKee again stated that Whelchel did the actual killing. This time, however, McKee stated that he saw Whelchel hit Margo at least ten times before he left to go up the hill. McKee also admitted more serious involvement. In response to the question, Why was [Margo] killed? McKee answered, Cause I wanted to get [Margo] out of my life, instead of getting a divorce I wanted. Steve [Whelchel] had that done. McKee said that he never asked Whelchel to murder his wife, but told him just don't involve me when Whelchel said he would kill her. 13 The tape-recorded interrogation of Flota was conducted on October 16, 1986, following his arrest. Flota had knowledge of, and consented to, the recording after being given a Miranda warning and waiving his Miranda rights. Flota also stated that Whelchel was the person who wanted to murder Margo and that it was Whelchel who did the actual killing. Flota admitted to holding Margo in a choke hold for about five minutes but claimed that Margo was still breathing and talking after he released her. Flota said that he choked Margo at Whelchel's insistence because he was afraid that Whelchel would hurt or kill him if he did not comply with Whelchel's instructions. Like McKee, Flota stated that Whelchel stabbed Margo. 14 At the trial, the jury heard edited versions of McKee's and Flota's tape-recorded statements. The edited versions solely omitted references to satanism and Margo's pregnancy. Whelchel's lawyer, who had objected to the introduction of the tapes before trial, renewed his objections before each tape was played.
15 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which applies to the states through its incorporation in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 465 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994), provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . be confronted with witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. [T]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986) (internal quotations omitted); see also LaJoie v. Thompson, 217 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Van Arsdall). 16 The Confrontation Clause requires that in order to introduce relevant statements at trial, state prosecutors either produce the declarants of those statements as witnesses at trial or demonstrate their unavailability. Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448U.S. 56, 65-66 (1980)). If unavailability has been demonstrated, then the proffered statements, which are by definition hearsay, must be shown to bear an adequate indicia of reliability. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 (1980); Bains, 204 F.3d at 973. This indicia of reliability  may be shown in two different ways. First, if the statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, reliability is established. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 (1990); see also Bains, 204 F.3d at 973. In cases where the statements do not fall within such a hearsay rule exception, the evidence must be excluded . . . absent a showing of `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'  Wright, 497 U.S. at 815 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66). 17 The particularized guarantees of trustworthiness must be shown from the totality of the circumstances . . . . Id. at 819. The relevant circumstances include only those that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief. Id. There is no mechanical test for determining reliability nor a prescribed list of reliability elements, see Barker v. Morris, 761 F.2d 1396, 1400-03 (9th Cir. 1985), and courts have considerable leeway in their consideration of appropriate factors, Wright , 497 U.S. at 822. The reliability of the out-of-court statements cannot be established by bootstrapping on the trustworthiness of other evidence. Id. at 823.
18 Both Flota and McKee invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify at Whelchel's trial. The district court correctly held that under such circumstances both declarants were legally unavailable. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 168 n.17 (1970); see also Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 549 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); United States v. McKinney, 707 F.2d 381, 383 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). 19 The state concedes that the McKee and Flota statements do not fall under any firmly rooted hearsay exception. Therefore, in order to be admissible, the statements must bear particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Both the Washington Supreme Court and the district court found that the tape-recordings do not meet this requirement. We agree with their analysis. 20 In general, the Washington Supreme Court and the district court relied on the principle that self-inculpatory statements by co-defendants that also inculpate the defendant at issue are presumptively unreliable. Lee, 476 U.S. at 539; see also United States v. Sarmiento-Perez, 633 F.2d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 1981) ([S]tatements of a codefendant have traditionally been viewed with special suspicion.) (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 141-42 (1968) (White, J., dissenting). The United States Supreme Court explained the basis for this suspicion as arising from a co-defendant's strong motivation to implicate the defendant and to exonerate himself . . . . Lee, 476 U.S. at 541 (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 141 (1968) (White, J., dissenting)). 21 The Flota and McKee recordings are textbook examples of co-defendant statements that are presumptively unreliable. While both Flota and McKee admitted to being at the murder scene and being aware that Margo was to be killed, each repeatedly minimized his own role. McKee disclaimed any responsibility for the planning and the actual murder, while Flota admitted to choking Margo but claimed that his acts did not kill her. As the Washington Supreme Court observed, by placing exclusive blame for the planning and performance of the murder on their co-defendant Whelchel, McKee and Flota were clearly attempting to foist blame on Whelchel while minimizing their responsibility. Whelchel, 801 P.2d at 954 (quoting D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence S 489, at 1411 (1980)). 22 The state argues that the presumption of unreliability is overcome by three factors: (1) the statements were contrary to the penal interests of McKee and Flota; (2) the state trial court found that both McKee and Flota made the statements in a mental attitude of wanting to clear their chest[sic]; (3) the statements were made voluntarily after both men had been advised of, and waived, their Miranda rights. These arguments are unpersuasive. 23 As mentioned, the presumption against the reliability of a co-defendant's statement exists notwithstanding the fact that the co-defendant's statement may generally be against his penal interest. The transcripts of the recordings clearly indicate that McKee and Flota, who both knew that the police suspected them of committing the murder when their interrogations were being recorded, were attempting to exculpate themselves. 24 As for the state's second argument, the trial court's statement is not a finding of fact, but an opinion expressed by the trial judge. Since the trial judge had no opportunity to personally observe McKee or Flota, the statement is also not a credibility determination. Moreover, trustworthiness determinations under a Confrontation Clause analysis are reviewed denovo. See Webb v. Lewis, 44 F.3d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewing the reliability of videotaped testimony and holding that on the ultimate determination of trustworthiness we act de novo.). 25 With regard to the third factor, it is highly questionable whether McKee and Flota made their statements voluntarily. To be sure, their statements were not coerced or made under duress so as to implicate Fifth Amendment concerns. However, McKee's second statement and Flota's statement were made after each had been placed under arrest for murder. McKee's first statement was made after it became clear to him that the police did not believe his missing persons report and suspected him of foul play. These scenarios are much different than a confession made by an individual not yet suspected of a crime. As the district court noted, that some of McKee's and Flota's statements were made after they were told that they had been implicated in the crime by others, enhances the level of duress and undermines reliability. Whelchel v. Wood, 996 F. Supp. 1019, 1027-28 (E.D. Wash. 1997) (citing Lee, 476 U.S. at 544). 26 Adding to the lack of reliability of these statements is that they were not taken under oath or subject to cross examination. The opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses is a critical component of Confrontation Clause analysis. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 678-79; see also LaJoie, 217 F.3d at 668. Here there was none. 27 Accordingly, we agree with the district court and the Supreme Court of Washington that it was a violation of the Confrontation Clause to admit the tape-recorded statements of McKee and Flota.

28 A Confrontation Clause violation is subject to harmless error analysis. See United States v. Bowman , 215 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2000). In the context of habeas petitions, the standard of review is whether a given error`had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'  Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 468 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993)). Under this standard of review: 29 [T]he question is, not were [the jurors ] right in their judgment, regardless of the error or its effect upon the verdict. It is rather what effect the error had or reasonably may be taken to have had upon the jury's decision . . . . The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. 30 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946). 31 We agree with the district court that the Confrontation Clause error was not harmless under this standard. In its analysis, the district court considered an illustrative set of factors to be considered when assessing the harmlessness of a Confrontation Clause violation as propagated by the Supreme Court in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986). These factors include the importance of the testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony, the extent of cross-examination permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Id. Van Arsdall, a direct rather than habeas corpus appeal, was subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the opinion or logic of Van Arsdall that limits the use of these factors to direct review. See, e.g., Latine v. Mann, 25 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (2d Cir. 1994) (applying the Van Arsdall factors under a Brecht standard on habeas corpus review). Moreover, the district court merely used the Van Arsdall factors as guidance and cited what it considered to be analogous factors articulated in Brecht . Whelchel, 996 F. Supp. at 1031. The Van Arsdall factors were properly considered and we use them as guidance in our analysis as well.
32
33 The district court correctly held that the Confrontation Clause error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury. The case against Whelchel consisted of three types of evidence: (1) physical evidence; (2) the testimony of third parties who either heard Whelchel make incriminating statements about the murder or placed him near the scene; and (3) the testimony of the four co-defendants. 34
35 The physical evidence against Whelchel is scant. Noblood was found on Whelchel's clothes and though two wooden table legs were found, neither were ever conclusively determined to have been the murder weapon. Additionally, the prosecution could not establish that a knife found in Whelchel's car, allegedly used to stab Margo, belonged to Whelchel. Testimony at trial suggested that the knife used in the stabbing was very similar to one bought by McKee; indeed McKee's were the only fingerprints found on this knife. There was also testimony that McKee and Flota tried to sell the knife used to kill Margo sometime between the murder and their arrest. 36 The only piece of physical evidence linking Whelchel to the murder was Margo's purse, which was found in Whelchel's car. The presence of the purse in Whelchel's car, however, comports with Whelchel's testimony that he helped Flota and McKee cover up the crime after the fact, in part by bringing a box full of items containing Flota's clothes to his house to wash blood from them. According to Whelchel's testimony, he was stopped by police when he was returning the clothes and other items in the box to Flota. 37
38 Whelchel argues that the testimony of his alleged confessions to third parties was also not overwhelmingly powerful. The prosecution presented seven different witnesses to whom Whelchel allegedly admitted committing the murder or said that he planned to do so. Turina Liebrecht testified that Whelchel said, We killed [Margo]. Audrey McClelland also testified that Whelchel told her that we killed  Margo. Whelchel contends that these statements are consistent with his story that he was involved in the conspiracy to cover up the murder after the fact. 39 Likewise, Whelchel argues that Tracy Weaver's testimony only implicated Whelchel in the conspiracy. Weaver testified that Whelchel had come and said [that] him and his friends killed Jerry's [McKee's] wife [Margo].  Mary Mosley's testimony was to the same effect. Mosley testified that she heard Whelchel, referring to Margo, say, We're going to kill her. 40 Steve Kirkendoll testified that Whelchel told him,Margo was going to be killed, and, he [Whelchel ] wanted her killed. On cross examination, Kirkendoll stated that Whelchel never told him that he was going to kill Margo himself. Kirkendoll also testified that he had previously been injured by Whelchel; Kirkendoll characterized it as a sucker punch to the head, which led to a three-day hospital stay. Obviously, Kirkendoll could have been viewed by the jury as having grounds for a grudge against Whelchel. 41 Two people testified that Whelchel actually said he committed a murder. Douglas Crozier testified that Whelchel said he had killed someone, though Margo's name was not mentioned. According to Crozier, Whelchel told him he had killed somebody and that he would do it again if a friend asked [him] . . . . On cross-examination, Crozier admitted to animosity towards Whelchel. David Joy, a former cell mate of both Whelchel and McKee, testified that Whelchel told him that he killed Margo. This testimony was substantially the same as Joy's testimony earlier at McKee's trial. On cross examination, Joy said that he had testified at McKee's trial at McKee's request after meeting McKee while incarcerated. 42
43 The testimony of co-defendant Hughes, though consistent, was not without difficulties for the prosecution, most importantly because Hughes never actually saw Whelchel hit Margo. Hughes testified that just before the attack began, she turned her back to Whelchel. While turned, she heard a crack like when you hit a baseball. When Hughes did turn back around, Margo was on her knees and Steve [Whelchel] was standing behind her. Hughes testified that she then ran away and that later, when she started to return to the scene, Whelchel told her to get the hell out of here. 44 Hughes testified that she heard Margo pleading with Whelchel to stop. On cross-examination, however, it was revealed that in an earlier statement Hughes said that she held her hands over her ears after Margo was first struck and could not hear any words or specific statements. Hughes also testified that Whelchel told her he had clubbed and stabbed Margo. 45 Unlike Hughes, Massey testified that she actually saw Whelchel kill Margo. Massey's testimony was substantially the same as Hughes's, except that Massey testified that she watched Whelchel hit Margo and did not flee the scene. Massey admitted that she hit Margo with a table leg herself. 46 The jury heard testimony which could undermine the credibility of Hughes and Massey. First, Massey had broken up with Whelchel subsequent to the murder but before she agreed to testify and Whelchel, in his role in the after the fact cover-up, allegedly threatened to turn in Massey and the rest of the group. Moreover, Hughes and Massey testified against Whelchel as part of a plea agreement in which they were prosecuted as juveniles in exchange for their testimony, giving them an incentive to minimize their roles in the murder. This incentive is especially strong in Massey's case, as sheadmitted striking Margo but claimed that her blows were inflicted post-mortem. 47
48 The prosecution emphasized the McKee and Flota testimony during its closing argument, referring to four eyewitnesses. In its closing, the prosecution referred to the taperecorded statements several times, even quoting from their transcripts. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, Not only are the incriminations [of co-defendants] devastating to the defendant but their credibility is inevitably suspect . . . . Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 136 (1968). McKee's and Flota's statements, especially as they dovetailed with the testimony of Hughes and Massey, were clearly prejudicial to Whelchel. Each of the four tended to corroborate the others, thereby bolstering the credibility of each. 49 While corroborative evidence may, as a general rule, make the wrongful introduction of other evidence harmless, this concept has no application where: (1) there was a reason for the jury to doubt the only eyewitness testimony; (2) the third party testimony was not exceptionally strong; and (3) the physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime was limited and explained by the suspect's claimed role of accessory after the fact. 50 Without the McKee and Flota statements, the prosecution presented the jury only one true eyewitness, Massey, who had two possible reasons to testify falsely -first, to shift blame when plea bargaining for a lighter sentence, especially since Massey admitted striking Margo, and second, to punish an ex-boyfriend who threatened to turn the murderers in to the police. The McKee and Flota statements contained important facts not testified to by either Hughes or Massey. For example, McKee and Flota recounted a game they allegedly played with Whelchel to determine who would strike the fatal blows and said that Whelchel decided to kill Margo even though he was not selected through the game. McKee and Flota also added that Whelchel assisted in the disposal of Margo's body after the murder. 51 McKee's and Flota's tape-recorded statements were not wholly cumulative of other evidence. Since co-defendant testimony is inherently suspect, the corroborative value of the McKee and Flota statements vis a vis the Massey and Hughes testimony was potentially significant to the jury's verdict. Moreover, this was not a case where the physical evidence or the third party testimony overwhelmingly pointed to Whelchel's guilt. Therefore, we cannot hold that the constitutional error in this case was harmless.