Opinion ID: 344061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mary c. brown's appeal

Text: 10 A. We consider first Mary Brown's claim that the trial court erroneously denied her motion to suppress statements obtained from her by Maria Parga, an F.B.I. agent. Mary contends that the F.B.I. interrogation violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel because it took place after an attorney had been appointed to represent her. Mary and Phyllis Brown were approached by the F.B.I. agents shortly before the state preliminary hearing was scheduled to begin. After they separated for the interrogation, Mary was given the Miranda warning 10 by Agent Parga, but she was never asked if she already had an attorney to represent her. At the suppression hearing, Agent Parga testified that she assumed Mary did have an attorney. 11 Mary Brown asserts that her statements derived from this interrogation should have been excluded under the teachings of Massiah v. United States, 1964, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246. We agree. 12 In Massiah, the Supreme Court held inadmissible the defendant's incriminatingstatements which government agents deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted, and in absence of his counsel. Id. at 206, 84 S.Ct. at 1203. We find that the Massiah proscriptions apply even though Mary Brown was not indicted by the federal grand jury until March 6, 1975. The right to consult with counsel attaches when the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory . . .. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 492, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 1766, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, 989. See Clifton v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 341 F.2d 649, 651. Escobedo and Massiah represent a broad indorsement by the Supreme Court of the right to have counsel present during an interrogation once the investigation has begun to focus on a particular suspect. Clifton v. United States, supra, 341 F.2d at 652. Here the F.B.I. interrogation took place on August 14, 1974, several days after her arrest, while Mary Brown was on her way to a preliminary hearing on state charges arising out of the identical circumstances on which the federal indictment was based. The investigation concerning the stolen Sears Merchandise Certificates was focused directly on Mary Brown. Agent Parga was not merely trying to ascertain whether or not there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. See Clifton v. United States, supra. She already knew that a crime had been committed. 11 The process was no longer investigatory in nature; it had shifted from investigatory to accusatory. Mary Brown was by now the focal point of the F.B.I.'s probe, precisely the juncture when legal advice is crucial to an individual. 13 The investigating F.B.I. agent here made no attempt to determine if Mary Brown had counsel. Agent Parga testified at the suppression hearing and again at the trial that she assumed Mary Brown had an attorney. But nevertheless the agent made no effort to determine if Mary had in fact retained counsel, and, if so, whether she wanted her attorney to be present at this interrogation session. 12 14 Under these circumstances interrogating officers must make a reasonable attempt to determine prior to interrogation whether the individual questioned has an attorney with whom she would like to consult. See Clifton v. United States, supra. Here, the agent assumed that Mary Brown had an attorney, but failed to exercise the slight additional precaution of asking Mary Brown whether she desired to confer with her attorney before answering any questions. This failure deprived Mary Brown of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 13 15 Our holding is not that all statements made in the absence of counsel are inadmissible. See United States v. Anderson, 5 Cir. 1975, 523 F.2d 1192; United States v. Vasquez, 5 Cir. 1973, 476 F.2d 730, cert. denied,414 U.S. 836, 94 S.Ct. 181, 38 L.Ed.2d 72; United States v. DeLoy, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 900. The bare absence of counsel is insufficient to trigger the Massiah doctrine. Each case turns on the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular interrogation. See United States v. Anderson, supra; United States v. DeLoy, supra. In DeLoy, we found no reprehensible conduct on the part of the interrogators. There, the government did not even suggest that the accused make a statement. He voluntarily visited the F.B.I. and insisted on making statements after being thoroughly advised of his Constitutional rights. Moreover, the defendant was encouraged to contact his attorney prior to making any statement. See United States v. DeLoy, supra, 421 F.2d at 902. The situation in the instant case was significantly different. 16 The agents intercepted Mary and Phyllis Brown before they could reach the courtroom and their lawyers. The F.B.I. agents admittedly knew that the state preliminary hearing was scheduled for 2:00 P.M. They stopped Mary Brown for questioning at approximately 1:30 P.M. on her way to court. It should have been obvious an attorney would be present to represent her in court on that day. Indeed the agents said they assumed this was the case. This amounted to considerably more than the bare absence of counsel. The government, through agent Parga, actively solicited statements from Mary Brown. We think that this sort of conduct is proscribed by Massiah. 17 We do not conceive that the district court's error in admitting Mary Brown's statements to the F.B.I. agent Parga into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. The untainted evidence against her was largely circumstantial and not overwhelming. See Harrington v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; United States v. Anderson, 5 Cir. 1975, 523 F.2d 1192. Introduction of the birth certificates gave rise to the logical inference that Mary Brown lied when she denied being related to Edwin Brown. Government counsel, in his closing argument to the jury, strongly emphasized the significance of this denial in light of the birth certificates. The trial judge instructed the jury that they could consider whether a false exculpatory statement points to consciousness of guilt. Under these circumstances, we hold that potential substantial prejudice to Mary Brown's rights inhered in her confrontation with the F.B.I. agent. She should have been accorded the right to have her attorney present at that confrontation. United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. Mary Brown's statements to the F.B.I. were admitted into evidence in violation of her constitutional right to counsel, and such violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, supra. 18 B. Mary Brown raises three other issues on appeal. In the interest of economy of judicial time, we deal with two of these issues, as they will doubtlessly arise on a retrial of this case. 14 19 Mary Brown additionally urges that her arrest lacked probable cause, and thus any evidence derived therefrom should have been excluded at trial. She claims that the evidence respecting the Sears certificates found in the security office trash can, under circumstances permitting the inference that she emptied them from her purse, should have been suppressed. She argues also that, even though she abandoned the certificates found in the trash can, her abandonment of them was involuntary. We find this argument to be without merit. 20 Mary Brown was arrested in Florida for a state offense. Thus, we turn to Florida law, insofar as it does not violate the Constitution, to ascertain the validity of her arrest. See Moll v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 1233, 1236. According to Florida law, an arrest has occurred when an alleged offender is apprehended or taken into custody. Range v. State, 2 D.C.A.Fla.1963, 156 So.2d 534. Mary Brown was initially apprehended by Mr. Mitchell. Although Mitchell is a police officer in Hallandale, Florida, he acted as a private citizen since he was not within his official jurisdiction when he took Mary into custody. Florida follows common law rules regarding arrests by private citizens. See United States v. Goeden, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 430; Moll v. United States, supra; Marden v. State, 3 D.C.A.Fla.1967, 203 So.2d 638. At common law, when a felony has actually been committed, a private citizen, acting in good faith, may lawfully arrest a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed the felony. United States v. Montos, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 215, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532; Moll v. United States, supra. See also, 6 C.J.S. Arrest § 14 (1975). Since a felony had in fact been committed, the next step is to determine whether Mr. Mitchell had reasonable grounds to believe that Mary Brown committed it. 21 Mary Brown was at the Sears jewelry counter when Phyllis Brown was discussing the purchase of a diamond ring. Both women were observed with books of certificates in their possession. Mary left for another department as Phyllis handed Ms. Cole several unstamped certificates. While she was busy calling security to check on these certificates, Ms. Cole observed the two women hastily leave the store. They left without the ring and without the $100 in certificates Ms. Cole had taken. Mr. Mitchell, after receiving the call, followed the women to their car and asked them if they had any more certificates. Phyllis reached under the seat of the car and handed him some books of certificates. In light of these facts, it appears that Mr. Mitchell had sufficient grounds to believe that the two women had committed a felony. Moreover, Florida statutory law permits a merchant's employee to take a person into custody and detain him in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time if the employee has probable cause to believe that the merchant's goods have been unlawfully taken by that person. Fla.Stat. § 901.34 (1975). See Meadows v. F. W. Woolworth Co., N.D.Fla.1966, 254 F.Supp. 907. We find that Mary Brown's arrest was legal, and the evidence derived therefrom was properly received. 22 We next consider Mary Brown's further contention that the district court erroneously admitted an REA waybill into evidence. 15 The waybill was offered by the government to demonstrate the interstate character of the shipment of Sears Merchandise Certificates. Mary Brown objected to its introduction on the grounds that it is hearsay. 23 We believe that the waybill satisfied the requirements of the Federal Business Records Act, Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1732, 16 and qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule. 24 The purpose of the Business Records Act is to dispense with the necessity of proving each and every entry by the person or persons actually making them. Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Knox Homes Corp., 5 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 887, 896. The underlying theory is that business records in the form regularly kept by the particular company and relied on by that company in the ordinary course of its business are trustworthy. See United States v. Fendley, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 181, 184. In Sabatino v. Curtiss National Bank of Miami Springs, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 632, this court set forth a three-pronged test to determine the admissibility of business records: 25 (1) the records must be kept pursuant to some routine procedure designed to assure their accuracy, 26 (2) they must be created for motives that would tend to assure accuracy (preparation for litigation, for example, is not such a motive), and 27 (3) they must not themselves be mere cumulations of hearsay or uninformed opinion. 28 415 F.2d at 637. See further, United States v. Ragano, 5 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 1191, 1200. 29 The basic prerequisites to admission under the Federal Business Records Act are present in the instant case. A special agent of REA testified that these records were kept in the regular course of his business, and that it was the regular course of his business to make and keep said records. See Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Knox Homes Corp., supra; Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1732. He further stated that he was familiar with business practices of REA in Atlanta. His testimony evidenced a sufficiently detailed knowledge of REA procedures and forms used in sending and receiving shipments. The agent adequately authenticated the record's accuracy and explained the efforts employed to ensure this accuracy. See United States v. Blake, 5 Cir. 1973, 488 F.2d 101. We have held, moreover, that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of business records. United States v. Fendley, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 181, 184. Its determination should not be overturned absent a showing that it has abused its discretion, Id., and no showing of such abuse is made on this appeal. The REA waybill satisfied the statutory requirements of Title 28, U.S.C., § 1732, and was properly received in evidence. 17