Opinion ID: 760497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Denial of the Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Text: 9 The defendant initially challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, in which he sought to suppress his statement of December 20, 1994. The trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Tilmon, 19 F.3d 1221, 1223 (7th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). 10 The defendant contends in his brief that the December 20 statement must be suppressed because he had not been properly advised of his constitutional rights prior to the meeting, according to the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Under Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, the Supreme Court recognized that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, after a defendant invokes his privilege, he has the right to remain silent and the right to the presence of an attorney during a custodial interrogation. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Id. This Court, following the Supreme Court's lead, has long recognized that an exception to the Miranda rule exists in circumstances where the defendant initiates communication with law enforcement after he invokes his right to counsel. See Robinson v. Percy, 738 F.2d 214, 221-22 (7th Cir.1984) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)). Although in Edwards the Supreme Court held that a defendant who asked for counsel did not waive his right to counsel when interviewed the following day upon the invitation of the police, the Court added that an accused ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Id., 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 (emphasis added). Had [the defendant] initiated the meeting ..., nothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from merely listening to his voluntary, volunteered statements and using them against him at trial. Id., 451 U.S. at 485, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 (emphasis added); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2354-55, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). 11 In the case under consideration, the trial judge rejected the defendant's motion to suppress, ruling that the Miranda warnings were unnecessary prior to the December 20 statement because the defendant, by initiat[ing] further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police, Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885, had waived his Miranda rights. Krankel requested the meeting and voluntarily gave the statement to the officers on December 20 in the hopes of providing information concerning the local drug trade in order that he might receive leniency in his state charge of solicitation for murder. After reading the record, we are convinced that the defendant freely and voluntarily wanted to and did in fact give the police the statement; he contacted the police on a number of occasions in order that he might receive a less severe punishment. Because the defendant initiated contact by repeatedly telephoning Harms to request a meeting before the conference and statement of December 20, the Edwards exception to the general Miranda rule governs and makes his statement admissible. 12 The same holds true with respect to the defendant's statement during the meeting on November 18. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not suppressing the statement given to Harms during the meeting at the Jefferson County courthouse. According to Harms's testimony, prior to the November 18 meeting, Krankel telephoned him on various occasions wanting to provide ... information that we could possibly use in exchange for maybe some leniency in his sentencing in that case. Furthermore, police officers readministered Miranda warnings at the start of the meeting on November 18. In our opinion, it is rather specious for Krankel to now argue that his statement from the November 18 meeting should have been suppressed. 13 The defendant also contends that the November 18 statement should be suppressed because there was a question as to whether [he] had the mental capability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights due to his long history of drug abuse. The defendant presented testimony at his suppression hearing from Dr. Terry Martinez (Martinez). 2 After examining Krankel's medical records, Martinez testified that Krankel suffered from Fried Brain Syndrome, which is a type of encephalopathy that renders the victim unable to function normally or think normally. However, it is interesting to note that the record discloses that the defendant failed to file any document or motion to apprise the court that he was not competent to waive his rights. Moreover, Martinez is not a doctor of medicine, but has only a doctoral degree in the field of pharmacy. Thus, Martinez is not a licensed physician and at no time did he present evidence that he ever personally examined the defendant. 14 Furthermore, the defendant never filed a motion before the trial court seeking suppression of the November 18 statement. The only motion to suppress the defendant filed was his motion to suppress the statement of December 20, 1994. This fact is reiterated by Krankel's attorney prior to the beginning of the hearing on the motion to suppress: 15 Your honor, I have one matter in my Motion to Suppress, I indicate in Paragraph Three that the conversation and interrogation in question occurred on November 20, that's not correct. [The Assistant United States Attorney] correctly points out in his reply that the actual conversation took place on December the 20th and I wanted the Court to be aware that's my mistake and the fact that Government has got the time frame correct in his response and my time frame and I'd like leave to amend my Motion to reflect the date of December 20th as being the conversation in question. 16 (emphasis added). Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that motions to suppress evidence be raised prior to trial. Subsection (f) of that Rule provides that failure to do so constitutes waiver. A defendant who fails to file a motion to suppress evidence in the trial court prior to trial waives his right to appellate review of the issue. See United States v. Smith, 80 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f); United States v. Moralez, 964 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 903, 113 S.Ct. 293, 121 L.Ed.2d 217 (1992)). 17 Finally, the defendant also contends that the statements he gave at both meetings with law enforcement officers should have been suppressed because, contrary to the officers' testimony, his attorney never gave them permission to speak with Krankel without counsel present. The defendant argues that under the Supreme Court's holding in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 635, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 1410-11, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986), the Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant's statements made to law enforcement officials after counsel has been assigned be suppressed if counsel is not present. We disagree, for we are of the opinion that the defendant has misread the Supreme Court's holding in Jackson, which provides in clear and unequivocal language that if police initiate interrogation after a defendant's assertion ... of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. Id. at 636, 106 S.Ct. at 1411 (emphasis added). We hold that Jackson does not apply to this case because, as discussed earlier, there is no doubt that Krankel initiated the discussions between himself and law enforcement officers and furthermore, the trial judge made an explicit finding that the defendant's attorney had also given the officers permission to talk with the defendant. The trial judge stated: [b]ased on the evidence that I've heard I find that the lawyer was contacted, he gave his permission to the law enforcement officer to talk to Mr. Krankle [sic]. Thus, the Sixth Amendment is not implicated in this case. 18 In summary, the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his statement from his meeting with law enforcement on December 20 because the defendant initiated contact with the police. Also, because the defendant failed to raise this issue before the trial court, he waived his right to argue that the November 18 statement should also be suppressed. Finally, the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not implicated because the defendant's counsel specifically permitted law enforcement officers to speak with the defendant in his absence.