Court Opinion

ID: 9481028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:05:43.78355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:03.371146
License: Public Domain

LEAVY, Circuit Judge,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:
I agree with the majority that this sentence should be vacated and that the case should be remanded. I dissent from the majority’s holding that a new rule be established requiring probation officers to allow counsel to be present at a presentence interview.
The record shows the district court failed to determine the issue before it: whether the defendant accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. Instead, the court deferred to the presentence report, informing the defendant that he failed to participate in a presentence interview at his own risk and that the findings of the probation officer would not be disturbed.
A probation officer’s presentence report is not binding on the district court. United States v. Belgard, 894 F.2d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.1990). The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate the defendant’s *1438acceptance of responsibility and is given wide latitude to come to a decision. United States v. Gonzalez, 897 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir.1990). Whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for his crime is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. Id. There is no limitation on the type of evidence a federal court may consider regarding the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of a federal crime. United States v. Watt, 910 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1990).
Because the defendant refused to be interviewed without counsel present, the probation officer had no information with which to make a recommendation on the acceptance of responsibility. The burden is on the defendant to make the necessary showing that he has accepted responsibility. See Gonzalez, 897 F.2d at 1021. The record shows the defendant tried to meet this burden by writing a letter to the court. The court should have decided the issue. Even after an interview, with or without the attorney present, the court must decide the issue.
We have observed that courts are not to be improperly influenced by presentence reports and will use their independent judgment to resolve issues before them. See Belgard, 894 F.2d at 1099. A district court may not punish a defendant for failing to participate in fact-gathering at a presen-te'nce interview if a defendant has by some other means carried the burden of persuading the court of his acceptance of responsibility.
Because the district court failed to determine whether there was an acceptance of responsibility, we must remand to give the court an opportunity to do so.
We have held there is no requirement for counsel to be present at presentence interviews between a defendant and a probation officer. Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 578 (9th Cir.1982). The Seventh Circuit, citing Baumann, has concluded this is so even after the advent of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 844 (7th Cir.1989). The majority avoids the holding of Bau-mann not by distinguishing it, but by resorting to an asserted supervisory power, which in this instance serves as a license to ignore precedent.
The majority announces a procedural rule that probation officers be required to permit defendants’ counsel at the presen-tence interview. The court then orders that the defendant be granted a new pre-sentence interview with counsel present. I disagree not only with the majority’s holding that the defendant has a right to the presence of an attorney, but also with the mechanics by which it is enforced, in that the majority treats the presentence interview as if it were a forum distinct from the district court. This flies in the face of remedies a court normally provides in circumstances where a person is deprived of an attorney at some location outside the courtroom. Where a defendant has not been given the right to have an attorney present under Miranda, no court has ever ordered that the defendant be sent back to the jailhouse to be interviewed with counsel. In line-up cases, where the defendant’s right to have an attorney present is not observed, we do not remand for a reenactment of the line-up. Instead, the court excludes the evidence. See, e.g., Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 723-24, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1775-76, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (Miranda); Smith v. Endell, 860 F.2d 1528, 1531 (9th Cir.1988) (Miranda); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) (line-up); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 273, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1957, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967) (line-up). Moreover, there is not even a civil rights action for damages for failure to give a Miranda, warning. Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir.1976); Dunkin v. Lamb, 500 F.Supp. 184, 187 (D.Nev.1980).
Thus I find inappropriate the court’s unprecedented exercise of its claimed supervisory power. The requirements of fairness are met by remanding and requiring the court to consider the evidence before it, as we usually do where a court has failed to decide an issue. No miscarriage of justice is involved by a simple remand with instructions to decide an issue using available evidence.
I fear the majority opinion will lead ultimately to an adversary proceeding at the *1439presentence interview, where not only defendants’ counsel is required but also the prosecutor.