Opinion ID: 858528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effectiveness of mid -stream miranda

Text: WARNINGS Williams counsels us to evaluate the mid-stream warnings under the following framework: (1) [T]he completeness and detail of the prewarning interrogation, (2) the overlapping content of the two rounds of interrogation, (3) the timing and circumstances of both interrogations, (4) the continuity of police personnel, (5) the extent to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round of interrogation as continuous with the first[,] and (6) whether any curative measures were taken. Williams, 435 F.3d at 1160. The agents’ initial round of interrogation was specific and complete. Their questions and accusations touched upon the timing, location, and drugs involved in the disputed transaction, including Barnes’s role in the transaction. Similarly, Barnes’s pre-warning responses were specific. 12 UNITED STATES V . BARNES According to Kuckertz and Agent Christopher Jones, Barnes admitted involvement in the Anchorage transaction prior to the warnings. That admission should have been no surprise to the FBI agents given the nature of the questioning and the use of the recorded phone call. The subject of the pre- and post-warning confession differed only slightly with respect to the transaction at the Anchorage airport. Pre-warning, Barnes admitted to his involvement in the Anchorage transaction but did not describe it in detail. Post-warning, he elaborated on his relationship with Pebenito and how the two had dealt drugs, mentioned several other drug transactions, and described the Anchorage transaction in greater detail. There was no break or dividing point in the interrogation. Barnes was interrogated in the same place before and after the warnings. After Barnes waived his rights, the agents immediately resumed the interrogation and continued questioning Barnes for approximately two hours. The agents apparently stopped only long enough to read Barnes the “advice of rights” form and allow him to waive his rights. The agents treated the second round of interrogation as continuous with the first—the second round was not a distinct phase to be distinguished from the initial; it was a mere continuation of the interrogation already underway. The process was a seamless one, with the same agents interrogating Barnes before and after the warnings. Kuckertz’s testimony highlighted the unbroken stream of testimony: A: The agents started explaining why they were there and that they had information that UNITED STATES V . BARNES 13 [Barnes] was involved with drug dealing. [Barnes] initially denied that and then they played a recording that they had in which you could hear him speaking . . . . And he then admitted that he was involved in that incident that they were questioning him about. And at that point they Mirandized him[,] and he was willing to further discuss what had happened. (Emphasis added.) This timing particularly reduces the impact of the recitation of constitutional rights. See Seibert, 542 U.S. at 613 (“Upon hearing warnings only in the aftermath of interrogation and just after making a confession, a suspect would hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent . . . .”). It is clear that Barnes admitted his involvement in the crime before he received the warnings and that his post-warning confession was merely an elaboration on his pre-warning admission of guilt. Finally, the agents took no curative measures to mitigate their error. They did not, for example, take a substantial time break in the interrogation or warn Barnes that what he had said before the warnings could not be used against him. See id. at 616. (“When the same officer who had conducted the first phase recited the Miranda warnings, he said nothing to counter the probable misimpression that the advice that anything Seibert said could be used against her also applied to the details of the inculpatory statement previously elicited. In particular, the police did not advise that her prior statement could not be used.”); id. at 622 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Alternatively, an additional warning that explains the likely inadmissibility of the prewarning custodial statement may be sufficient.”); see also Williams, 435 F.3d at 14 UNITED STATES V . BARNES 1161 (recognizing that a break in time between two interrogations could serve as an appropriate curative measure). Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the warnings Barnes received were not effective and that his post-warning confession should have been suppressed.