Court Opinion

ID: 9496857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:37:10.187738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:50.808664
License: Public Domain

*1103HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Joseph Beck gave two incriminating statements that were undoubtedly central to his conviction. The government elicited each of those statements after Beck’s constitutional right to counsel attached, and thus they should not have been admitted at his trial. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which finds no error in the admission of these statements. I would grant Beck’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, permitting the state to retry him without use of the unconstitutionally-obtained statements.
BACKGROUND
In August of 1981, Julie Parton and her young son lived at the home of her grandparents, Herbert and Georgianna Kemp. Parton was Joseph Beck’s girlfriend, and Beck was the father of Parton’s child. Beck’s relationship with Parton caused tension between Parton and her grandparents. Eventually, Beck and Parton decided to kill her grandparents and on August 27, 1981, they carried out the plan. Shortly thereafter, Beck and Parton left town.
At the time of the killing, Beck was represented by a public defender, Christine Miller Hendrix, on unrelated felony charges. On August 30, 1981, Beck’s mother contacted Hendrix, and informed her that Beck had asked for a lawyer because he was a suspect in the Kemp murders. Hendrix agreed to represent Beck in connection with the murders.
A number of relevant events occurred on September 1, 1981. Hendrix called St. Charles County Sheriff Edward Uebinger and informed him that she represented Beck.5 She gave Uebinger her home telephone number, and insisted that she be contacted if Beck was apprehended before any questioning took place. Hendrix also called the St. Charles County Jail and left a message for Dean Stephens, the head of the facility, stating she wanted to be notified if Beck was brought to the jail. St. Charles Prosecuting Attorney Donald Kohl conferred with Sheriff Uebinger. He advised that Uebinger did not have to call Hendrix if Beck was arrested, despite Ue-binger’s understanding that Beck was represented by counsel. Meanwhile, in an ex parte proceeding, Prosecuting Attorney Kohl filed a document in support of an arrest warrant. The document read as follows:
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF MISSOURI
ss. CAPITAL MURDER - TWO COUNTS COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI ASSOCIATE JUDGE DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI
against
JOSEPH NICKOLAS BECK
COUNT I
The prosecuting Attorney of the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, charges that the defendant, JOSEPH NICKOLAS BECK, in violation of section 565.001 RSMo, committed the felony of capital murder, punishable upon conviction under Sections 565.008.1, 565.006, 565.012 RSMo, in that the defendant wilfully, knowingly, with premeditation, deliberately and unlawfully *1104killed Herbert Kemp by shooting him on or about the 27th day of August, 1981, in the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, thereby causing him to die on or about the 27th day of August, 1981, in the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri.
COUNT II
The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, charges that the defendant, JOSEPH NICHOLAS BECK, in violation of Section 565.001 RSMo, committed the felony of capital murder, punishable upon conviction under Sections 565.008.1, 565.006, 565.012 RSMo, in that the Defendant wilfully, knowingly, with premeditation, deliberately and unlawfully killed Georginia [sic] Kemp by shooting her on or about the 27th day of August, 1981, in the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, thereby causing her to die on or about the 27th day of August, 1981, in the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri.
/s/
Prosecuting Attorney of the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, by

M

Donald L. Kohl
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Missouri Bar No. 28062
An arrest warrant was issued based on this document.
On September 3, 1981, Hendrix saw Prosecuting Attorney Kohl in a judge’s chambers. She informed him that she represented Beck and told him to notify her if Beck was arrested, prior to any interrogation. Kohl did not tell her that he had filed the document in support of the arrest warrant and that an arrest warrant subsequently issued, nor did he tell her about his advice to Sheriff Uebinger.
At some point, Sheriff Uebinger received information that Beck was traveling to the Miami, Florida airport. On September 4, 1981, he dispatched two of his deputies to apprehend Beck, but did not tell them that Beck was represented by Hendrix. Florida authorities arrested Beck a day later at the Miami International Airport. He was then questioned by the two St. Charles County officers. Sheriff Ue-binger was notified of Beck’s arrest, but did not pass on this information to Hendrix.
On September 8, 1981, Hendrix called Sheriff Uebinger after learning from newspaper reports that Beck had been arrested. Despite the fact that Uebinger’s deputies had already interrogated Beck, Uebinger again assured Hendrix that she would be contacted before Beck was questioned. Hendrix did not talk to Beck until late in the evening on September 8, 1981. By that time, he had given several incriminating statements: one shortly after his arrest on September 5, 1981, and another on September 8, 1981, during the flight back to Missouri.6
A preliminary hearing on Beck’s murder charges was held on September 18, 1981. On September 29, 1981, he was formally *1105charged with the Kemp murders by an information. Prior to trial, Beck moved to suppress the statements he gave on September 5th and September 8th, but was unsuccessful. He was tried and convicted of both killings.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, reversed Beck’s conviction. The court found that Beck’s right to an attorney attached on September 1, 1981, the date the prosecutor filed the document in support of Beck’s arrest warrant. The state appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and affirmed the conviction. State v. Beck, 687 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1985).
Beck then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing or the benefit of the full state court record. We reversed and remanded with instructions to review the full record before rendering another decision. Beck v. Bowersox, 257 F.3d 900, 901 (8th Cir.2001). After doing so, the district court again denied Beck’s petition.
ANALYSIS
Beck contends that the statements elicited from him on September 5th and September 8th without his lawyer present violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At the time of Beck’s statements, the only documents filed were an arrest warrant and the supporting document. The majority holds that because Beck was not formally charged by information at the time he gave his statements, no constitutional right to counsel had yet attached. To my mind, such a narrow and rigid view of the Sixth Amendment does not comport with the Supreme Court’s decisions on the matter, nor those of our circuit.
Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceedings. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 205, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). The right attaches to “interrogation activities conducted ‘at or after the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings-whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment.’ ” Gilmore v. Armontrout, 861 F.2d 1061, 1070 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)).
The majority attempts to obfuscate the issue by citing cases which hold that no right to counsel attaches at the time of arrest or at the filing of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I agree that if only an arrest warrant were filed, Beck’s argument would merit little discussion. See United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (“[W]e have never held that the right to counsel attaches at the time of arrest.”); United States v. Purham, 725 F.2d 450, 454 (8th Cir.1984) (“An arrest for a crime with which the defendant is eventually charged does not initiate adversarial judicial proceedings.”). I cannot agree, however, that the document filed in support of the arrest warrant was a mere formalism attendant to the arrest warrant. Rather, as the Missouri Court of Appeals recognized, the document operated as the initiation of adversarial proceedings against Beck, and thus triggered his right to counsel.
The arrest warrant issued on September 1, 1981, and was issued only after Prosecuting Attorney Kohl filed a document equivalent in every respect to a criminal complaint. See Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.02 (1981) (stating that a complaint must identify name of court, defendant, facts constituting the felony including date and place, and signature of prosecuting attorney) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.02 *1106and 22.03). Curiously, however, the majority holds that the issuance of the arrest warrant was not preceded by any event that initiated the criminal proceedings against Beck. This is inconsistent with Missouri’s own rules of criminal procedure on the matter,7 and disregards the plain language of the document, which clearly signaled the beginning of adversary criminal proceedings.
The document filed in support of the arrest warrant carefully recited the allegations against Beck and charged him with capital murder. It satisfied all the requirements of a complaint under Missouri law. After it was filed, an arrest warrant was issued for Beck. In accord with Missouri’s own rules on the matter, I would hold that the document filed by Prosecuting Attorney Kohl in support of the warrant operated as a complaint. Accord Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04). In fact, it was so treated by the state circuit court, which issued an arrest warrant based on this document.
My conclusion that the document was the equivalent of a complaint is further buttressed by a comparison of it to the information filed on September 29, 1981. The majority agrees that the right to counsel would attach following the filing of this information. It fails to recognize, though, that the information and the document filed by Prosecuting Attorney Kohl in this case are nearly identical, and contain precisely the same allegations, word for word. I agree with the Missouri Court of Appeals on this matter:
Is the filing of a paper wherein a prosecutor under oath charges a defendant with violations of specific statutes any less a commitment to prosecution when labelled “Affidavit” rather than “Information”?. Does the difference in title cause the defendant to be any less confronted with the prosecutorial forces of organized society or less deeply immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law? The frequently quoted indicia of the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings as set forth in Kirby are “formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment.” Were we to give an affirmative answer to the questions posited above, we would effectively strike the first of these indicia from the Supreme Court’s definition.
State v. Beck, No. 46741, slip op. at 11 (Mo.Ct.App. Mar.6, 1984).
I cannot agree that virtually the same document, filed in the same court, would trigger Beck’s right to counsel when called an information, but not when called an affidavit. The title of the document is irrelevant; the key inquiry is whether the affidavit signaled that the state had “committed itself to prosecute.” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (plurality opinion); see also Smith v. Lockhart, 923 F.2d 1314, 1318-19 (8th Cir.1991) (listing criminal stages at which right to counsel attaches); accord United States v. Red Bird, 287 F.3d 709, 715-16 (8th Cir.2002) (holding right to counsel attached before filing of formal criminal complaint in federal court where tribal court proceedings had already begun and federal government operated in concert with tribal forces to investigate the allegations). The document filed by Prosecuting Attorney Kohl on September 1, 1981, was clearly a commitment to prosecute: It was sworn out by a prosecuting attorney; recited the allegations; charged an offense; and resulted.in an arrest war*1107rant for Beck. In fact, it was subsequently-used as a template for the information filed on September 29,1981.
Moreover, I have found no support in the record for the view that the “sole purpose” of the document was to “secure an arrest warrant” for Beck. Ante at 1101 (quoting State v. Beck, 687 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Mo. banc 1985)). If anything, the record reveals that even the state may have recognized that Prosecuting Attorney Kohl’s document signaled the initiation of adversarial proceedings. At a hearing on Beck’s motion to dismiss, Prosecuting Attorney Kohl admitted that one consideration in reaching an agreement to have Julie Parton testify against Beck was that Beck’s statements may be ruled inadmissible. There is no doubt that this decision reflected the concern that Beck’s statements had been elicited after his right to counsel attached.
In Manning v. Bowersox, 310 F.3d 571 (8th Cir.2002), the petitioner argued his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the government’s use of an informant after he was charged by complaint in Missouri state court. The state argued that Manning did not have a constitutional right to counsel because he was charged by complaint rather than by indictment at the time of his statements. We dismissed this purported distinction, holding that “[t]he right to counsel attached to interrogations conducted after the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings against the defendant; it is of no import whether the proceedings were initiated by complaint or indictment.” Id. at 575. Manning made clear that a Missouri defendant’s right to counsel attaches following the filing of a complaint or its equivalent. Because Beck’s case similarly involved Missouri law and procedure, I see no use in turning to those cases relied upon by the majority which consider the effect of filing of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.8 See also Chewning v. Rogerson, 29 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir.1994) (noting with approval the stipulation that the filing of a criminal complaint in Iowa state court triggered petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
I am troubled by the majority’s claim that recognizing Beck’s right to counsel as I have suggested “might discourage the use of warrants in making arrests.” Ante at 1102. Perhaps this is a valid consideration, but it ignores the more serious concern associated with governmental manipulation of criminal proceedings. This case presents a telling example: Beck’s attorney informed the sheriff, the jail, and the prosecuting attorney that she represented Beck well before he was apprehended. Nonetheless, the state purposefully disregarded her, and Beck’s right to speak with her, in favor of securing a confession. Such directed and zealous prosecutorial work may be effective in securing convictions, but it simply cannot be tolerated under our Constitution. Today, the majority upholds such conduct under the guise that no formal charges had been filed against Beck, despite the obvious intent of the state to prosecute him as early as September 1, 1981. This will inevitably encourage the government to similarly exploit the criminal process to its benefit in the future, without any regard for the rights of the accused.
In short, the document filed by Prosecuting Attorney Kohl on September 1, 1981, in support of Beck’s arrest warrant, operated as a complaint under Missouri law and signaled the initiation of adver*1108sarial criminal proceedings against Beck. Accordingly, the Constitution guaranteed Beck a right to counsel at the time he was interrogated on September 5th and September 8th, 1981. Because that right was violated, his statements should not have been admitted at trial.
CONCLUSION
Due to the constitutional infirmity of Beck’s conviction, I would reverse the district court and grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

. This conversation was recorded and transcribed in the Missouri Supreme Court's decision relating to Beck’s direct appeal. See State v. Beck, 687 S.W.2d 155, 157 n. 4 (Mo. banc 1985).

. Beck actually gave a third incriminating statement once brought to the jail in Missouri, but this statement was suppressed and not used at trial. Nonetheless, the facts surrounding that statement are illustrative of the government’s conduct in this case: Beck was brought to the St. Charles County jail around 9:00 p.m. on September 8, 1981. Shortly thereafter, Beck was again interrogated. Hendrix did not arrive at the jail until 9:30 p.m., and she was not allowed to see Beck pursuant to the order of Prosecuting Attorney Kohl. Hendrix then sought out a circuit court judge to resolve the matter, after which Hendrix was finally allowed access to her client at about 11:00 p.m. on the night of September 8, 1981. For the purposes of clarity, references in this dissent to the September 8, 1981 statement relate to the statement on that date that was not suppressed.

. Missouri’s rules of criminal procedure permitted the issuance of felony arrest warrants after a criminal proceeding was initiated by the filing of a complaint or the return of an indictment. See Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.03 (1981) (current version at Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 22.04).

. In contrast, I look to the clear statement from Missouri's own rules of criminal procedure, as adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, that felony proceedings "may be initiated by complaint" or indictment. Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 22.01.