Court Opinion

ID: 9622037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:11:18.18733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:12.483868
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the court's conclusion that the state violated the rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), or with its alternative conclusion that Kochutin’s Miranda waivers were involuntary. Although this case presents unique factual circumstances that raise close and serious legal issues, I believe adherence to established precedent requires the conclusion that Kochutin’s confessions were lawfully obtained.
Kochutin’s reliance on Edwards is predicated on the assumption that he was in continuous Miranda custody at all pertinent times. Although the majority correctly points out that the United States Supreme Court has never definitively held that continuous custody is a prerequisite to application of the Edwards rule, the continuous custody requirement seems to have become uniformly accepted, and Kochutin does not seriously question it. Numerous cases hold that Edwards applies only so long as a suspect remains in custody after initially asserting his Miranda rights and that a suspect who has been released from continuous custody may subsequently be recontacted by the police; if the renewed contact occurs in a custodial setting, a renewed Miranda warning is, of course, required before interrogation may proceed, but the police-initiated contact will not itself be barred under Edwards.1
*309Kochutin was confined in prison at all times from the invocation of his Miranda rights by Morse in August of 1985 until the interviews initiated by Trooper Stevenson’s visit to the Sixth Avenue Jail a year later, on August 13, 1986. However, the mere fact that Kochutin remained in prison does not necessarily establish that he was continuously in custody for Miranda purposes. There is a wealth of authority to support the conclusion that a sentenced prisoner serving time in a correctional facility is not ipso facto in Miranda custody.2
These authorities make sense. Miranda’s requirement of warnings and its establishment of a right to counsel as an adjunct to the fifth amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination were predicated on the inherently coercive nature of confinement in police custody following an arrest. Most recently, the Supreme Court has described its concern with the inherent coerciveness of police custody in the following terms: “Questioning by captors, who appear to control the suspect’s fate, may create mutually reinforcing pressures that the Court has assumed will weaken the suspect’s will_” Illinois v. Perkins, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 2397, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990).
In recognition of Miranda’s underlying purposes, however, the Supreme Court has made it plain that Miranda ceases to apply when custody occurs in the absence of inherent coercion. As the Court concluded in Perkins: “We reject the argument that Miranda warnings are required whenever a suspect is in custody in a technical sense and converses with someone who happens to be a government agent.” Id.
When a person is confined in custody solely as a sentenced prisoner, with no charges pending, the issue of guilt resolved by a final verdict, and the terms and conditions of future confinement clearly defined in a written judgment that is a matter of public record, the anxiety and uncertainty that support Miranda’s finding of inherent coercion simply cease to exist. When custody is not related to any pending or unresolved matter, it seems to me that there is little cause for concern that a police officer will “appear to control the suspect’s fate,” Id., at least in the absence of a showing that the officer’s conduct somehow creates an atmosphere of custody going beyond that to which the suspect is accustomed in his normal setting.3 See, e.g., Skinner, 667 F.2d at 1308-09.
If it is safe to say under existing case law that a sentenced prisoner cannot automatically be deemed to be in continuing Miranda custody, then it is equally safe to say that a sentenced prisoner who invokes the right to counsel upon being interrogated under circumstances amounting to Miranda custody and is thereafter returned to normal sentenced-prisoner status should not automatically be deemed to be in continuous custody under Edwards. Once returned to the ordinary routine of other sentenced prisoners — without any vestige of the inherently coercive circumstances incidental to custodial interrogation — the prisoner should be treated, for Edwards *310purposes, in the same manner as any person who has been arrested, questioned in custody, and released.
Kochutin was serving a sentence for unrelated crimes when T.T.’s body was discovered. As an obvious focus of suspicion, he was twice transferred to more secure and restrictive confinement. Kochutin’s changed status could well give rise to the type of anxiety and uncertainty contemplated by Miranda, and consequently, any attempt to question Kochutin while he was in administrative segregation would have amounted to custodial interrogation. For this reason, when Kochutin consulted with his attorney and invoked his Miranda rights through him, Kochutin was certainly in Miranda custody.
From the limited record in the case, it is uncertain precisely when Kochutin’s Miranda custody ended. It is nonetheless clear that at some point during the fall of 1985 — by December at the latest — Kochu-tin was released from administrative segregation and returned to regular, sentenced-prisoner status at the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center. From that point, so long as Kochutin remained incarcerated solely as a finally convicted, sentenced prisoner, he was no longer in Miranda custody. In the absence of evidence suggesting that Kochutin’s return to sentenced-prisoner status was a ruse to allow further police contact, Edwards no longer precluded police-initiated contact in the absence of counsel.
Admittedly, Edwards was meant to adopt a “bright-line” rule that could be applied consistently and predictably; the case could thus conceivably apply to Ko-chutin’s situation, even though neither logic nor common sense seem to compel that result. In my view, however, Edwards’ bright line is not a laser, burning inexorably through form and substance into infinity. When the factual circumstances of a case fall into a predictable, potentially recurring pattern to which the underlying policy of Miranda and Edwards cease to apply, then so too does the bright-line of Edwards cease to shine.4
Because Kochutin was no longer in Miranda custody and Edwards no longer applied to his case after his return to ordinary senteneed-prisoner status, the restrictions against further police-initiated contact in his case were no greater than they would have been with any other individual who had been arrested, questioned, and released after invoking his Miranda right to counsel. When the troopers contacted Kochutin in August of 1986, no charges were pending against him. He was not confined in connection with any contemplated or unresolved case. He was not the subject of any adversarial proceeding. The mere fact that Kochutin was the focus of a criminal investigation did not confer upon him a continuing right to counsel under the *311sixth amendment or art. I, § 11 of the Alaska Constitution. Eben v. State, 599 P.2d 700, 706-07 (Alaska 1979); Thiel v. State, 762 P.2d 478, 481-82 (Alaska App.1988). By the same token, unless and until the troopers attempted to reinterview Ko-chutin in a setting that was more custodial than Kochutin’s everyday surroundings, he had no ongoing Miranda right to counsel.
Thus, on the factual record of this case, I am unable to see how the authorities acted impermissibly in initiating contact with Ko-chutin in August of 1986 without first informing his attorney. Assuming Trooper Stevenson’s visit to Kochutin at the Sixth Avenue Jail brought with it some objective manifestation of custody, the ensuing interview would have amounted to custodial interrogation requiring the Miranda warnings to be given. Stevenson, however, administered the requisite warnings and secured a full waiver from Kochutin. In fact, Stevenson went beyond the required warnings, reminding Kochutin that he had been represented by Morse and all but inviting him to contact Morse. Kochutin declined. Edwards did not bar the visit.
The majority’s opinion alternatively holds that Kochutin’s Miranda waiver was not voluntary. At first blush, this alternative theory seems plausible — even tempting. Yet Kochutin has never — not on appeal or in the superior court — challenged the vol-untariness of his Miranda waiver ór of the confessions he made during ensuing interrogations. The record — restricted as it is to stipulated facts and transcripts of Ko-chutin’s recorded statements — is devoid of any objective indication that Kochutin did not act voluntarily. Under the circumstances, the majority’s alternative theory appears less a de facto finding of involuntariness and more a de jure extension of the Edwards rule: that is, a finding, as a matter of law, that regardless of how voluntary Kochutin’s waiver may have been, the majority, for reasons of extrinsic policy, is unwilling to recognize it as voluntary.5 As I have previously indicated, I simply see no reason to extend the rule in Edwards to Kochutin’s situation.
I therefore dissent.6

. See, e.g., Dunkins v. Thigpin, 854 F.2d 394, 397 (11th Cir.1988); McFadden v. Garraghty, 820 F.2d 654, 660-61 (4th Cir.1987); United States ex rel. Espinoza v. Fairman, 813 F.2d 117, 125-26 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Skinner, 667 F.2d 1306, 1308-09 (9th Cir.1982); People v. Trujillo, 773 P.2d 1086, 1091-92 (Colo.1989); State v. Byrnes, 258 Ga. 813, 375 S.E.2d 41, 41-42 (1989); State v. Norris, 244 Kan. 326, 768 P.2d 296, 301 (1989); Brown v. State, 661 P.2d 1024, 1029-30 (Wyo.1983); State v. Kyger, 787 S.W.2d 13, 24-25 (Tenn.Crim.App.1989). See *309also United States v. Granda, 29 M.J. 771, 776 (ACMR 1989).

. See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 905 F.2d 959, 961-63 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 23 (2nd Cir.1988); United States v. Cooper, 800 F.2d 412, 414-15 (4th Cir.1986); United States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970, 972-73 (4th Cir.1985); Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424, 428-29 (9th Cir.1978); State v. Vickers, 159 Ariz. 532, 768 P.2d 1177, 1183 (1989); State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 778 P.2d 602, 608 (1988); People v. Johnson, 197 Ill.App.3d 762, 144 Ill.Dec. 293, 555 N.E.2d 412, 413-14 (1990); Blain v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 10, 371 S.E.2d 838, 840-41 (1988); People v. Anthony, 185 Cal.App.3d 1114, 230 Cal.Rptr. 268, 272 (2 Dist.1986).

. In considering circumstances analogous to those in Kochutin’s case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit aptly observed in United States v. Hall, 905 F.2d at 962:
Hall remained in jail, but he was there because he was already serving a prior sentence. Hall was no strangeryo the state penitentiary. In fact, Hall was not '‘in custody” as that term has been used in the context of Edwards and Roberson [Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) ]. One could readily argue that Hall was more comfortable within the surroundings in which he was interrogated than the two Secret Service agents.

. To reach a contrary conclusion would, I think, have anomalous consequences. Kochutin’s case provides a good illustration. Well before T.T.’s body was discovered, and well before Kochutin spoke with his attorney Morse about being transferred to administrative segregation, he had been convicted and sentenced on other charges. Morse represented Kochutin in connection with those charges. Kochutin has apparently remained continuously in custody as a sentenced prisoner since then. Under existing case law, in the absence of evidence indicating that Kochutin’s original request for representation was for limited, sixth amendment purposes, his representation by Morse in the earlier proceedings would be presumed an invocation of his Miranda right to counsel as well as his right to counsel under the sixth amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Wolf, 879 F.2d 1320 (6th Cir.1989); Cervi v. Kemp, 855 F.2d 702, 706-07 (11th Cir.1988); United States ex rel. Espinoza v. Fairman, 813 F.2d at 117. Under Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), Kochutin’s invocation of his fifth amendment rights in the earlier, unrelated proceedings would apply to custodial interrogation concerning any other potential charges. If Edwards were construed to apply automatically to those who remain continuously in custody solely as sentenced prisoners, the inevitable conclusion would seem to be that, from the time of Kochutin’s original incarceration in connection with the unrelated cases, the police were barred from making any effort to contact him. Thus, even without Kochutin’s call to Morse and Morse’s communications in August 1985, the troopers would have violated Edwards if they had made any attempt to contact Kochutin without first notifying Morse and securing Morse’s presence. However, as was noted in United States v. Hall, 905 F.2d at 963, "neither Edwards nor Roberson can be interpreted ... to grant ... such a blanket protection continuing ad infini-tum.”

. Kochutin separately argues that the district attorney’s decision to authorize police contact without first notifying Morse violated the Alaska Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1). It seems to me that this argument incorrectly assumes the existence of an ongoing attorney-client relationship between Morse and Kochutin. Arguably, when Kochu-tin's Miranda custody terminated upon his transfer back to ordinary sentenced prisoner status, Morse’s representation of him in connection with his invocation of his Miranda rights also ended. Even assuming Morse continued to represent Kochutin, his representation would be analogous to that of a private attorney retained to provide advice to a client in anticipation of possible criminal charges, before attachment of the constitutional right to counsel and before Miranda custody arose. Even in the face of actual knowledge of representation, the police would not violate the constitution in contacting a person who had retained counsel under such circumstances. Thiel v. State, 762 P.2d at 481-82 (Alaska App.1988). It is nonetheless conceivable that Kochutin’s status as a potential target would qualify him as a "party" under such circumstances for purposes of Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(l). If so, I agree with Judge Carlson’s conclusion that suppression would not be an appropriate remedy for violation of the Disciplinary Rule. I emphasize, however, that my conclusion is limited to these particular circumstances, in which the disciplinary rule violation occurs before the constitutional right to counsel has attached, when no Miranda custody exists, and when there is no "active incursion into or impairment of the attorney-client relationship....” Id. 762 P.2d at 483.

. The majority’s decision to reverse Kochutin’s conviction makes it unnecessary for me to address Kochutin’s remaining claims on appeal except in a cursory manner. To the extent that Kochutin advances separate federal constitutional, state constitutional, and statutory arguments for the proposition that the troopers violated his rights by initiating contact with him without first informing his attorney, I find no relevant distinctions under the three alternative theories. Kochutin has separately argued that his confessions should have been suppressed because the troopers failed to readminister the Miranda warnings to him on August 14, 1986. Assuming the interview on August 14 was custodial (an assumption which, in my view, cannot be confirmed on the sparse factual record now *312before us), I would uphold Judge Carlson's conclusion that the failure to readminister Miranda warnings was not fatal. While in many circumstances, readministration of warnings might be necessary for renewed interrogation by a new officer a day after an initial waiver had been obtained, in the present case it seems to me that, in submitting to police interviews on August 14, Kochutin was doing precisely what he had agreed to do after being advised of and waiving his rights the previous day. Under these circumstances, readvisement was not necessary.
Kochutin’s remaining issues are evidentiary matters relating to his trial. I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow evidence of Xenofont Ema-noffs out-of-court confessions. Alaska Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) requires not just corroboration, but "corroborating circumstances [that] clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement." (Emphasis added.) The trial court's discretion to exclude marginally corroborated evidence under this rule is broad. Garroutte v. State, 683 P.2d 262, 267 (Alaska App.1984). No abuse of discretion occurred here. Given my conclusion that Emanoffs out-of-court confessions were properly excluded, I would further find that the trial court did not err in declining to allow Emanoff to be present in the courtroom during Kochutin’s trial. Finally, I would find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of Emanoffs prior convictions from being presented to establish his possible motive for killing T.T. See, e.g., Marrone v. State, 359 P.2d 969, 984-85 (Alaska 1961); People v. Hall, 41 Cal.3d 826, 226 Cal. Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99, 104 (1986).