Court Opinion

ID: 9647442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:36:35.834173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:49.473513
License: Public Domain

*68POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
Unlike the Majority, I find that the use of the defendant’s confession at trial violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 878 (1981).
Before giving my rationale for the position espoused, I find it necessary to recount the facts. To that end, the suppression hearing transcript reveals that, on April 4, 1985, F.B.I. Special Agents Hosinski and Rasmussen arrested the defendant in Washington, D.C. The arrest was effectuated on the strength of a criminal complaint reproduced over a teletype indicating that the authorities in Pennsylvania were seeking the defendant on homicide charges.
Once the defendant had been transported to the Agents’ field office, he was advised of his rights and was asked if he wished to make a statement. His response was: “... no, I would like to have an attorney; I think I should have an attorney.” No questions were asked of the defendant; he was merely processed and informed of his rights a second time before being removed to the Metropolitan Police Department for additional processing on the local level, per an understanding between federal and local officials. As a result thereof, the defendant was charged by federal officials with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, the arraignment on which took place on April 5, 1985, in federal district court. Counsel for the defendant was Attorney Barney J. Keren.
However, because the District of Columbia police charged the defendant on April 8, 1985, with being a fugitive from justice, the equivalent federal charge was dismissed the same day. Also, Attorney Nancy Beiter was appointed counsel for the defendant on April 8 as well. She represented him when he waived extradition in Superior Court and remained in the District of Columbia jail until the proper authorities arrived to remove him to Pennsylvania.
On April 5, 1985, the Pennsylvania State Police were notified by Detective Smith, of the District of Columbia *69police, that the defendant was being held by federal officials on fugitive charges. He was aware of Pennsylvania’s interest because the defendant was listed in the NCIC computer. However, the State Police did not arrive in Washington, D.C. until April 8. Prior thereto, it appears that the Pittsburgh police were also looking for the defendant to question him regarding the robbery/murder of one Patrick Huber.
Pittsburgh detectives Hedinger and Freeman arrived in Washington, D.C. on April 6 and proceeded to the federal facility housing the defendant. The “shift” commander informed the defendant that there were two officers from Pittsburgh who wanted to question him, but that “he didn’t have to speak with [the police] if he didn’t want to.” Defendant agreed to talk to the police and signed a form to that effect. Next, the detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights before inquiring about the Huber killing. At this point, the defendant agreed to discuss the matter and, as a result thereof, made incriminating statements concerning the Huber case. Moreover, following the rendition of the Miranda warnings a second time, the defendant made inculpatory statements regarding the Lawrence County shooting of Dean O’Hara, a third shooting which occurred in Mercer County and the robbery of a store, all of which transpired in this Commonwealth.
The interrogation of the defendant lasted from 11:14 a.m. to 1:39 p.m. During this time, the detectives never asked the defendant whether he had an attorney. They merely inquired if he wished to speak in the presence of an attorney, to which he answered, “no”.
It was not until April 8, 1985, that Pennsylvania State Troopers Holtman and Wherthey made their way to Washington, D.C. They observed the defendant as he stood before a federal magistrate, with counsel present (Attorney Keren) from the public defender’s office, being arraigned for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution charges. Once this was completed, the defendant was removed to another room whereupon Troopers Holtman and Wherthey were allowed *70to question the defendant concerning the O’Hara homicide. In particular, the troopers informed the defendant of the numerous procedures which would occur upon his return to Lawrence County. During the course of the troopers’ discussion with the defendant, they asked whether the defendant would “make a statement and have it put on videotape.” The defendant stated: “... he did not want to give a statement while he was in Washington, D.C____ He said, I’ll give you a taped statement on the way home.”
The defendant was then taken back to the Fugitive Division of the Metropolitan Police Department. Thereafter, the troopers went back to see the defendant. He was advised of his Miranda rights and asked whether he would speak to them about the gun used in the homicide. He said, “yes”. The remarks made by the defendant indicated he was aware of the weapon used in the shooting and from whose vehicle (the decedent’s) it was taken. Prior to the troopers return to Pennsylvania with the defendant, they saw him a third time in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. This was the extradition hearing where the defendant was represented by Attorney Beiter.
En route from Washington, D.C., the troopers asked the defendant for a statement, and he stated he would give one once they reached New Castle. Upon arrival, the defendant was advised of his rights and indicated he did not want an attorney. Thereafter, he gave a taped statement dealing with the O’Hara murder and the robbery of the store. At the completion of the statement, the defendant received a phone call from the attorney (David Acker, the public defender) assigned to represent him. The defendant was told by counsel not to make any further statements to the police. When this was communicated to the troopers, the questioning of the defendant ceased.
On appeal, the defendant challenges, inter alia, the incriminating statements he made while in custody in Washington, D.C. to the Pittsburgh detectives and the Pennsylvania State Police. He does so on the basis that his request for the appointment of counsel following his arrest on *71federal fugitive charges precluded his interrogation thereafter, and he does so on the basis of Edwards v. Arizona, supra.
In Edwards v. Arizona, the defendant was being questioned by police in regard to a robbery, burglary and murder. Following the rendition of his Miranda rights, Edwards agreed to talk and gave an alibi defense. When he was told by police that a suspect in custody had implicate him, he wanted to “make a deal”. When the officer informed the accused that he did not have the authority to do so, Edwards told the officer that he wanted an attorney. At this stage, the questioning stopped and Edwards was taken from the police station to county jail.
The next day, two detectives went to speak to the accused. When the detention officer told the accused that he had to talk even though he did not want to, the detectives read him his Miranda rights before he agreed to make a statement implicating himself in the crimes.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that albeit the defendant had invoked his rights to remain silent and to counsel, he waived them during the following day’s meeting with detectives after the Miranda rights were given to the accused. The United States Supreme Court held otherwise by agreeing with Edwards that because he had exercised his right to counsel one day during interrogation, he did not validly waive that right the succeeding day. In the course of so holding, the Court wrote:
... we now hold that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further *72communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
Miranda itself indicated that the assertion of the right to counsel was a significant event and that once exercised by the accused, “the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” 384 U.S., at 474, 86 S.Ct., at 1627. Our later cases have not abandoned that view.
451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85 (Footnote omitted). As noted by the Court in Edwards v. Arizona, the cessation of questioning with the invocation of one’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel has its roots in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), wherein the Court stated, in clear and mandatory language:
If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
384 U.S. at 474, 86 S.Ct. at 1628 (Emphasis added). Accord Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2568, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446. U.S. 291, 298, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1688, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96,104 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 321, 326 n. 10, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975).
Given the “bright-line” mandate of Edwards v. Arizona, when read in conjunction with Miranda v. Arizona, our inquiry should be one of whether the defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel when questioned by the federal authorities on April 4, 1985, triggered his right to representation during subsequent questioning by the Pittsburgh police on April 6 and the Pennsylvania State Troopers on April 8? I believe it did and look to the remarks in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986) in support of the same. On this exact issue, the United States Supreme Court stated:
*73The State maintains that respondents may not have actually intended their request for counsel to encompass representation during any further questioning by the police. This argument, however, must be considered against the backdrop of our standard for assessing waivers of constitutional rights. Almost a half century ago, in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), a case involving an alleged waiver of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court explained that we should “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” Id., at 464, 58 S.Ct., at 1023. For that reason, it is the State that has the burden of establishing a valid waiver. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. [387], at 404, 97 S.Ct. [1232], at 1242 [51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977)]. Doubts must be resolved in favor of protecting the constitutional claim. This settled approach to questions of waiver requires us to give a broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation to a defendant’s request for counsel — we presume that the defendant requests the lawyer’s services at every critical stage of the prosecution.6 We thus reject the State’s suggestion that respondents’ requests for the appointment of counsel should be construed to apply only to representation in formal legal proceedings.
475 U.S. at 633 & n. 6, 106 S.Ct. at 1409 & n. 6 (Emphasis added; footnote omitted).
In this writer’s mind, the remarks in Michigan v. Jackson, when viewed against the backdrop of the facts instantly, militate against any finding that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the presence of counsel during his interrogation by Pittsburgh police and *74Pennsylvania State Troopers. Once the Fifth Amendment right to counsel is invoked, Edwards v. Arizona’s “bright-line” rule to safeguard such a right can be waived by the initiation of conversation by the defendant and not the police. See Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 641, 648, 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1340,1343, 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984). Such was not the case instantly. I find this to be fatal under the teachings of Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, most notably Edwards v. Arizona, since the defendant’s attorney’s function as a “ ‘medium’ between [the suspect] and the State” during interrogation, see Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 428, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1145, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), was undermined by the actions of the authorities in the face of record evidence that the defendant invoked his right to counsel before the federal authorities. Accord Arizona v. Roberson, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). And, the fact that the Pittsburgh police and the Pennsylvania State Troopers were not cognizant of this is to no avail. In the context of a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case, which I find applicable to this Fifth Amendment issue before us, the United States Supreme Court responded to a similar contention thusly:
The State points to another factual difference: The police may not know of the defendant’s request for attorney at the arraignment. That claimed distinction is similarly unavailing. In the cases at bar, in which the officers in charge of the investigations of respondents were present at the arraignments, the argument is particularly unconvincing. More generally, however, Sixth Amendment principles require that we impute the State’s knowledge from one state actor to another. For the Sixth Amendment concerns the confrontation between the State and the individual. One set of state actors (the police) may not claim ignorance of defendants’ unequivocal request for counsel to another state actor (the court).
Michigan v. Jackson, supra, 475 U.S. at 634, 106 S.Ct. at 1410 (Emphasis added). In a similar vein, just as in Michigan v. Jackson, I see no reason why the federal agents’ awareness of the defendant’s request for counsel during his *75interrogation could not be imputed to the state officials so as to taint their questioning of the accused in the absence of counsel.
Further, I cannot join in that portion of the Majority’s Opinion whereby it concludes that, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a), a defendant need prove his mental illness “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas the defense of legal insanity must be established by a mere “preponderance of the evidence”. The Majority offers no justification, be it premised upon law or logic, for the dichotomy, and I can find none since both are affirmative defenses.
As in the circumstances where a defendant is afforded the opportunity to rebut the “intent” element in a charge of murder in the first degree by producing evidence of his intoxication (by a preponderance of the evidence), see Commonwealth v. White, 366 Pa.Super. 538, 531 A.2d 806 (1987), should not the same standard prevail in effectuating the intention of the Legislature in promulgating § 314. See Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 32 (13th Ed.1972). I would so hold.
In other words, my reading of § 314, in a common sense fashion (1 Pa.C.S. § 1921), would invoke the application of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to both the “mentally ill” and “legally insane” defenses. See generally Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 30 (13th Ed.1972). It would be for the factfinder to determine whether the Commonwealth established the defendant’s sanity or absence of mental illness beyond a reasonable doubt. See generally Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 491 Pa. 300, 421 A.2d 147, 149 (1980).
To the extent that the Majority would affirm the actions of the trial court in its charge to the jury — mental illness defense need be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the defendant whereas legal insanity must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, I dissent and would award the defendant a new trial.
For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent.

 In construing respondents’ request for counsel, we do not, of course, suggest that the right to counsel turns on such a request. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S., at 404, 97 S.Ct., at 1242 ("the right to counsel does not depend upon a request by the defendant”); Camley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513, 82 S.Ct. 884, 888, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962) ("it is settled that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request”). Rather, we construe the defendant’s request for counsel as an extremely important fact in considering the validity of a subsequent waiver in response to police-initiated interrogation.