Court Opinion

ID: 9851296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:10:08.74288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:53.107713
License: Public Domain

ROVIRA, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
I respectfully dissent from Part II of the majority opinion.
Part II of the majority opinion adopts “at least” a five-part test for purposes of determining whether there was sufficient attenuation between Briggs’s statements of January 4, 1980, and the challenged evidence obtained through Martin. At 917. The majority then remands the case for findings consistent with the new test. While the test may be of some help to trial courts deciding attenuation issues in the future, I see no need for remanding this case to the trial court. Rather, the substantial record which already exists not only provides overwhelming evidence of Briggs’s guilt but also supports a finding of attenuation under the new test.
The first factor of the majority’s five-part test requires the trial court to consider “the role played by Briggs’s involuntary statements in inducing Martin’s cooperation.” Majority op. at 917. Admittedly, Briggs’s statement of January 4, 1980, played a role in convincing Martin to cooperate. The record shows that on January 4 Briggs admitted to the police that he committed the burglary with Dewey and that Martin had transported some of the stolen property to Indiana. Based on this information, the police immediately confronted Martin, gave him Miranda warnings, and proceeded to establish the first link in a rather long chain which ultimately led to Briggs’s conviction. This conclusion is easily drawn from the existing record.1
While the first factor, as applied to this case, militates against a finding of attenuation, the remaining four factors do not. Moreover, the record, as is, contains evidence relevant to the remaining four factors sufficient to preclude the need for remand.
The second factor of the new test requires the trial court to consider “the length of time between the involuntary statements and discovery of the challenged evidence.” However, the record already shows that five days passed between the date Briggs was promised immunity, January 4, 1980, and the date Martin first made statements implicating Briggs in the murder after he requested immunity, January 9, 1980. Similarly, we already know that ten days passed between January 4, 1980, *925and the date Martin recorded Briggs’s statements, January 14, 1980, which incriminated Briggs as the sole perpetrator of the murder. Over one month passed between January 4, 1980, and the formal order of immunity; and over nine months passed between January 4, 1980, and Martin’s testimony at trial. In my opinion, while the five-day period between January 4, 1980, and January 9, 1980, may be too short, the other periods are not so close to the date of the initial taint as to bar a finding of attenuation. In short, there is nothing further to learn in regard to the relevant time frames — there is nothing further to be gained by remanding the issue to the trial court.
The third factor requires the trial court to consider “whether Martin was a suspect.” Here again, I think the record clearly shows that Martin was a suspect at the time of the initial illegality. The record establishes that as early as December 20, 1979, detectives had questioned Martin about the burglary and the murder. On that date, the police discovered that Martin was living with Briggs, was occupying the murder victim’s old room, and was in possession of a camera believed to have been stolen in the Barnewell burglary. In fact, on December 20, 1979, after consenting to a search of his room, Martin told the police that he had purchased the camera from Dewey. In sum, the record now shows that Martin was indeed a suspect; accordingly, there is no need for remand on this point.
The fourth factor requires the trial court to consider the “degree of free will exercised by Martin.” In considering the free will of Martin, the majority also urges the trial court to consider whether Martin was acting under a “promise” of immunity as opposed to a “grant” of immunity. In analyzing the free will factor, I believe that the record contains sufficient evidence that the statements, recording, and testimony obtained through Martin were all accompanied by indicia of free will. Specifically, it is important to note that Martin requested immunity on January 9; the police did not offer immunity. It is also important to consider that Martin had displayed some tendency toward cooperation as early as December 20, 1979, when he consented to a search of his bedroom and later admitted to the investigating officers that he had purchased the stolen camera from Dewey. With regard to Martin’s free will relative to surreptitiously recording Briggs on January 14, the trial court has already found that Martin was motivated, in part, by a desire “to obtain sufficient information to clear his name,” “to exonerate himself from the deceptive results of the polygraph examination,” and “to clear his own name and rehabilitate his position as to his claim of veracity.” These findings by the trial court, supported by the record, clearly evidence an intention on the part of Martin to cooperate with the police. The fact that Martin was formally granted immunity on the date of the preliminary hearing does not extinguish or limit this preexisting inclination toward cooperation.
Given, however, that the trial court must now once again consider the free will issue, I think it important to emphasize a few of the factors which have been recognized as significant in determining the existence of free will in attenuation analysis. In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921, 100 S.Ct. 3011, 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), a case in which an accomplice agreed to testify against the defendant as part of a plea bargain, the Tenth Circuit found “sufficient voluntariness” and, in so doing, noted that the witness’s decision to testify was motivated in part “by a desire to change his life style and stay out of trouble.” Id. at 1230. In United States v. Mergist, 738 F.2d 645 (5th Cir.1984), the Fifth Circuit found attenuation and noted it was relevant that the witness said “that he was testifying voluntarily and of his own free will, and had not been coerced or threatened to do so.” Id. at 648. See also United States v. Hooton, 662 F.2d 628, 632 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1004, 102 S.Ct. 1640, 71 L.Ed.2d 873 (1982). In United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct. *9263027, 65 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1980), the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s refusal to strike a witness’s testimony which had been claimed by the defendant to be the product of an illegal seizure. The court held that the trial testimony was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal search. In deciding the free will issue, the court considered: “the stated willingness of the witness to testify, the role played by the illegally seized evidence in gaining his cooperation, the proximity between the illegal behavior, the decision to cooperate and the actual testimony at trial, and the police motivation in conducting the search.” Id. at 752, citing Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1055. After reviewing the record and noting it was likely that the witness “decided to cooperate as a matter of self interest,” the court concluded that the testimony was the “product of detached reflection and a desire to be cooperative.” Id. at 753, quoting Ceccolini, 435 U.S. at 277, 98 S.Ct. at 1060. See also United States v. Schaefer, 691 F.2d 639, 645 (3d Cir.1982) (witness’s decision to testify “stemmed from his voluntary decision to promote his own interests with respect to sentencing”). While these factors are not exhaustive, their presence or absence should help guide trial judges and counsel in resolving the free will issue.
In analyzing the free will issue, the majority places particular emphasis on the distinction between a promise of immunity and a formal judicial grant of immunity. The majority finds this distinction important because a witness testifying under an official grant of immunity may face a jail term for contempt or prosecution for perjury if he refuses to testify. Conversely, the witness who provides evidence while under a promise of immunity is not subject to such sanctions. Majority op. at 920. The majority suggests that this distinction affects the free will determination because testimony provided pursuant to a formal grant of immunity is akin to “compelled” or “coerced” testimony. While I doubt that this distinction has merit, it must be emphasized that the majority has not adopted a per se rule; that is, the mere fact that evidence is obtained from a witness under a formal grant of immunity does not automatically foreclose a finding of free will. Majority op. at 919-920. It is still possible for the prosecution to establish that the witness acted with free will both before and after receiving the official grant of immunity. Upon such a showing, the trial judge would be warranted in finding sufficient attenuation between the initial illegality and the testimony of the witness.
The fifth factor mandated by the majority requires the trial court to consider “the time, place, and manner of all of the questioning of Martin.” This factor is apparently derived from United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978), in which the Court stated: “The time,- place and manner of the initial questioning of the witness may be such that any statements are truly the product of detached reflection and a desire to be cooperative on the part of the witness.” Id. at 277, 98 S.Ct. at 1060. Unfortunately, the Ceccolini Court did not explain what may or may not be an appropriate time, place, and manner. However, there is nothing in the record suggesting that the time, place, and manner of questioning was inappropriate. If there was anything inappropriate or unduly coercive about the time, place, and manner of questioning, I think it is safe to assume that a record would have been made on the issue.
Hence, all of the factors listed by the majority as determinative of the attenuation issue are already satisfied to varying degrees by evidence found in the record. In the words of the United States Supreme Court: “the trial resulted in a record of amply sufficient detail and depth from which the determination may be made.” Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 107, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2562, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). In my opinion, the existing evidence is sufficient to support a finding of attenuation and, accordingly, I would affirm the conviction.
Finally, I disagree with the majority’s categorical rejection of the balancing analy*927sis involving the exclusionary rule’s deterrent effect when determining whether the challenged evidence is sufficiently attenuated from the initial taint. Majority op. at 918. In the fourth amendment context, it is well settled that a judge may properly weigh the flagrancy and purpose of the official misconduct against the deterrent effect of exclusion. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). The majority reasons that the exclusionary rule in the fifth amendment context has only an incidental effect on deterrence and that the fifth amendment “is by its terms an exclusionary rule.” Majority op. at 918, quoting United States v. Kurzer, 534 F.2d 511, 516 (2d Cir.1976). However, neither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever held that the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination absolutely prohibits a trial judge from considering as a factor, in attenuation analysis, the nature of the original taint. To the contrary, Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), suggests that such an inquiry would be proper. In that case, the defendant was arrested for rape and, without being given full warnings consistent with Miranda, stated that he was with a friend at the time of the crime. The friend later provided statements which tended to incriminate the defendant. The Court held that, even though the defendant was not given his full Miranda warnings, he was not deprived of his privilege against self-incrimination because his statements were voluntary and were not induced by the threat of potential legal sanctions such as the threat of contempt. Id. at 445, 94 S.Ct. at 2364. The Court consequently held that the evidence derived from the defendant’s initial statement was admissible. Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist reasoned that in the search and seizure context the exclusionary rule’s “prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 446, 94 S.Ct. at 2365, quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). He then went on to state:
In a proper case this rationale would seem applicable to the Fifth Amendment context as well.
The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.
417 U.S. at 447, 94 S.Ct. at 2365. Unfortunately, Justice Rehnquist never explained what the “proper” fifth amendment case might be. Clearly, Michigan v. Tucker established that a majority of the Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that the fifth amendment forbids all inquiry into the nature of police misconduct.
The fifth amendment violation in the present case stems from the promise of immunity which was given the defendant on January 4, 1980. As noted by the majority, the People did not appeal the trial court’s ruling that Briggs’s statements pursuant to the promise of immunity were involuntary because they were based on “promises [that] were implied regardless of how slight they may be.” It is important to note the trial court found that there were “no threats or violence in this case....” Hence, we have an involuntary statement elicited in good faith by the police. Against this should be balanced the social costs associated with excluding probative and reliable evidence of the defendant’s guilt. In my opinion, this is the type of “proper” fifth amendment case in which a trial judge should consider, in addition to the other factors promulgated by the majority, the nature of the alleged police misconduct.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the issue of attenuation and affirm the judgment of the trial court. I concur in the judgment of the court on the issue of inevitable discovery.
*928I am authorized to say that Justice ERICKSON joins me in this dissent and concurrence.

. While the statement by Briggs on January 4 stimulated the police to focus on Martin, there is no reason to believe that the investigation would have ceased absent the statement. Hence, although the role played by Briggs’s statement was substantial, it is by no means fatal to further attenuation analysis. See United States v. Schaefer, 691 F.2d 639, 645 (3d Cir. 1982).