Court Opinion

ID: 9482530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:52:54.660292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:02.957585
License: Public Domain

KAZEN, District Judge,
dissenting in part:
I concur with Judge Higginbotham’s able opinion affirming the convictions of Leroy Johnson and Carol Diane Tilley. I respectfully dissent from the reversal of Lester Johnson’s conviction.
The majority concludes that the statements made by Lester Johnson (“Johnson”) to his co-defendant Arlion “Ray” Bullard (“Bullard”) were obtained in violation of Johnson’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and that Johnson did not knowingly waive that right. I disagree.
I agree with the trial court that Johnson effectively waived his right to counsel. Johnson knew Bullard had already pled guilty, that he had provided a full statement to the police, and that he had agreed to testify for the government. Johnson knew that he had a right to have his attorney present at his meetings with Bullard, but deliberately and intentionally chose not to do so.
The standard for determining the validity of a waiver of the right to counsel is whether the waiver “reflects ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 2395, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). Johnson insist*1024ed upon keeping his conversations with Bullard free from attorney interference, telling Bullard, “This ain’t between my lawyer or your lawyer, this is between us!” Johnson’s meetings with Bullard flew in the face of his attorney’s advice not to speak to other witnesses.1 The trial court found that “Johnson had received the benefit of counsel not to talk to Bullard and, knowing that Bullard was a cooperating witness, proceeded against counsel’s advice.” One who knows he has the right to counsel “is in a curious posture to later complain” that his waiver of that right was unknowing. Id. at 2395 (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1819, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977)).
This case is distinguishable from precedent cited as controlling by the majority because Johnson was aware that Bullard was assisting the government at the time of their meetings. On the contrary, Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) involved “a secret government informant.” Id. at 479. The defendant there thought he was meeting with a friendly co-defendant to plan their joint defense strategy at trial. Id. at 487. The court held that by “concealing the fact that (the informant) was an agent of the State, the police denied (the defendant) the opportunity to consult with counsel....” Id. at 488. See United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 269, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2186, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980) (defendant unaware that cellmate acting as paid government informant); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 207, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 1203, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) (defendant did not know at time of meeting that co-defendant had pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against him).
In this case, while Johnson perhaps did not know the specifics of Bullard’s plea bargain with the Government, he definitely knew that Bullard was pleading guilty and cooperating with the Government. Indeed, the specific purpose of his overtures to Bullard was to determine the extent of Bullard’s proposed testimony against him and to attempt to shape and limit that testimony. Nevertheless, the majority finds no Sixth Amendment waiver because Johnson did not know definitely that Bul-lard would convey the substance of their conversations to the authorities. Use of this subjective standard is not mandated by precedent. See United States v. Melvin, 650 F.2d 641, 645-46 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (no Sixth Amendment violation where defendant lacked reasonable expectation of confidentiality in communications made to attorney in presence of co-defendant who had “not joined the defense team”) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gartner, 518 F.2d 633, 635 (2d Cir.) (right to counsel not violated where defendant knew at time of meeting that co-defendant had agreed to cooperate with government), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 915, 96 S.Ct. 222, 46 L.Ed.2d 144 (1975); accord United States v. Bell, 776 F.2d 965 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904, 106 S.Ct. 3272, 91 L.Ed.2d 563 (1986).
Patterson instructs that the key inquiry in the waiver analysis is whether the defendant was sufficiently aware of his right to have counsel present during the questioning and of the possible consequences of a decision to forego that presence. 108 S.Ct. *1025at 2395. Johnson clearly knew that he had the right to have counsel present and, equally clearly, did not want counsel’s presence.2 Johnson also knew what the attorney could do for him during questioning, “namely, advise (him) to refrain from making any ... statements.” Id. Indeed his attorney had already given him that precise advice, and he deliberately chose to ignore it.3 As the majority recognizes, Johnson was aware that his meetings with Bullard were risky and specifically expressed concern about being “set up” by Bullard, but ultimately concluded that Bullard would not do that.
Johnson knew that a possible consequence of ignoring his own counsel’s advice was that Bullard would actually report incriminating statements to the government. Johnson did not suffer from lack of knowledge, but rather from an error in judgment. Obviously, Johnson did “later regret his decision to speak with” Bullard, but “the Sixth Amendment does not disable a criminal defendant from exercising his free will.” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 1182, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990).
To summarize, Johnson’s statements were not physically coerced by any government agent, he voluntarily initiated the meetings with Bullard, he knew that Bul-lard had already agreed to help the government by testifying against him at the upcoming trial, he had an attorney and knew he had the right to have his attorney present at the meetings with Bullard, his attorney specifically advised him not to talk with Bullard, he deliberately ignored that advice and made the conscious choice to meet Bullard without his attorney, he specifically weighed the possibility that he would be “set up” by Bullard, and he deliberately chose to take that risk. Notwithstanding all that, he will now be afforded a new trial at which his voluntary statements will be suppressed. I respect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship but under the circumstances of this particular case, to hold that Johnson did not waive his Sixth Amendment rights is “to imprison (him) in his privileges and call it the Constitution.” Id. at 1182 (quoting Adams v. United States, ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 280, 63 S.Ct. 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942)).

. Counsel’s advice to Johnson had been to avoid communication with Bullard or any other government witnesses; Johnson chose not to follow this advice. As explained in Patterson:
[A]n attorney’s role at postindictment questioning is rather limited, and substantially different from the attorney’s role in later phases of criminal proceedings_ [DJuring postin-dictment questioning, a lawyer’s role is rather unidimensional: largely limited to advising his client as to what questions to answer and which ones to decline to answer.
Patterson, 108 S.Ct. at 2395-96 n. 6.
The role of Johnson's attorney at the meetings would have necessarily been limited to advising Johnson not to discuss the case with Bullard at all. The logical basis for this advice was the attorney’s knowledge that Bullard was cooperating with the government and intended to testify against Johnson. Obviously, there would have been no meetings had Johnson's attorney been present. Johnson knew this, and as a result chose not to have his counsel present. This choice constituted a knowing waiver of his right to counsel. See id. at 2397-98 ("pragmatic” approach to waiver question is determination of what purposes lawyer can serve at particular stage of proceeding and what assistance he could provide to accused).

. The following are excerpts from the Johnson-Bullard taped conversations:
Johnson: No. Listen to what I’m saying. Let’s get this straight right now. Right now. This ain’t between my lawyer or your lawyer, this is between us!
Bullard: Okay, so this one of those between us.
Johnson: Yeah. Neither one is to know.
Bullard: Okay. Okay.
Johnson: God, don’t tell Tinker you and I discussed and we talked alone I can’t tell my lawyer that.
Bullard: Okay.
Johnson: Please
Bullard: Okay, Candy.
Johnson: My lawyer already warned me not to do that that’s why I told you I may go to jail. He’s already called me — not today but yesterday.
Bullard: Okay.
Johnson: But then too you see this is what you don’t understand, is, my lawyer they always stick together.
Bullard: Okay, that’s understood, get back to your track.
Johnson: Might tell
Bullard: I understand that — I understand.
Johnson: They might tell the US Attorney— these two are between us will — that my lawyer, don’t know about your lawyer and my lawyer don’t know.

. In that regard, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977) is distinguishable. It is true that the attorney there had telephonically advised his client not to discuss the case with the police. The actual finding of the Supreme Court, however, was based on the defendant’s "consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel in dealing with the authorities.” Id. at 404, 97 S.Ct. at 1242. In fact, during the motor trip, shortly before blurting out the incriminating statements to the agents, Williams again stated that he would talk only after seeing his attorney upon arrival at their destination. Id. at 405, 97 S.Ct. at 1243. In contrast, Johnson unequivocally asserted to Bullard that he wanted his attorney to have no involvement whatsoever in their discussions.