Court Opinion

ID: 9493823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:20:33.468705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:03.317189
License: Public Domain

PRATT, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Astello’s second, unwarned confession given on June 20, 1997 was given freely and voluntarily, and therefore the district court was correct in not suppressing that confession. In this respect, I concur -with the majority’s opinion. As to Astello’s June 19, 1997 statement, however, I respectfully dissent. I believe that Astello’s statements given to the interviewing agents on June 19th were the product of *969compulsion, and therefore obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
I.
It is undisputed that after reading Astello his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and obtaining from him a signed waiver form, agents Enger and Birnie launched into a focused interrogation of Astello, quizzing him about the events and circumstances surrounding the June 6th murder.
A review of the tape and transcript of the June 19th interrogation reveals that the agents repeatedly tried, but failed, to get Astello to make inculpatory statements about him and others involved. During the first hour of the interrogation, they employed, as the majority puts it, a “laundry list of tactics,” ante at 967, to elicit from Astello a confession. These tactics included: use of a train analogy (“you still have the opportunity to get on that train, and tell us what happened”); implied promises of leniency (cooperation may result in “something less” than mandatory life sentence); accusations that the Defendant was a “classic” liar; sympathetic appeals to the Defendant (“[we] don’t think that you’re a bad guy”; “things happen”; “you just happened to be at a bad place at a bad time”); and guilt (“You’ve disgraced” your father who is “too nice a person” and “[y]our mother [who] is too nice a lady”).
Throughout this initial phase of the interrogation, Astello answered the questions posed to him. He never told the agents to stop their questioning. Astello consistently denied his involvement in the June 6th murder.
After about an hour, however, the tenor of the interrogation changed. Astello signaled his intention to suspend the questioning and speak to his mother first before saying anything else to the agents. Astello requested three times to speak with his mother before telling his story, but to no avail. The relevant exchange, which is omitted from the majority’s opinion, is as follows:
Astello4: Well, if you give me a last chance to talk to my mom at least right now before I say anything, cuz I think I’ll just stick with the truth then.
Enger: You wanna talk to your mom first?
Astello: Yeah.
Enger: What’s your feeling?
Astello: Cuz I guess this ain’t gonna make any difference I guess. If I’m lying, I’m still going’ in. If I say the truth, I’m still going’ in, so what’s the difference.
Enger: Well, you’re going’ in. * * *
Birnie: You’re not gonna be able to hide behind your mom’s skirt anymore.... [Y]ou can pull the wool over your mom’s eyes; you haven’t done it to your dad.
Enger: Other than breakin’ his heart.
Birnie: But your mom’s not gonna be able to come and bail you out this time. What’s it gonna be?
Astello: I told you already. I want to talk to my mom first. Then I’ll talk. Yeah, I was involved in it, that’s all. You wanna hear that? I was involved in it.
Enger: We know that.
Astello: I know what went on and everything about it. I told you I need to talk to my mom first.
Enger: Let me ask you what you wanna talk to your mom about. You’re a big boy now.
Astello: Yeah, I know I am.
Enger: Okay.
Astello: Just to tell her I’m — what’s going’ on.
*970Enger: Why don’t you do this.
Astello: Yeah.
Enger: Why don’t you tell us what happened, and when we’re done, we’ll give you the opportunity to talk to your mom.
Astello: Okay.
Enger: You can have a minute with her. Astello: Just a minute?
Enger: Well, you can have a reasonable amount of time, how’s that?
Astello: Okay.
Later that same day, Astello confessed, implicating himself in the kidnaping and murder of Sky Erickson. The June 19th interrogation concluded at about 9:30 p.m., approximately 3 hours after it began.
Later that night, Astello requested to speak with agents Birnie and Enger again about the murder. They met with Astello at a different holding facility at 9:43 a.m. on June 20, 1997. The agents did not give fresh Miranda warnings. Astello provided additional details surrounding his involvement in the June 6th murder. This second interview, which was also tape recorded, lasted approximately 90 minutes.
II.
In Miranda, the Supreme Court observed:
Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602.
In Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), the Supreme Court clarified this quoted passage. “The critical safeguard identified in the passage at issue is a person’s Tight to cut off questioning.’ ” Id. at 103, 96 S.Ct. 321. The “admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent,” held the Court, “depends under Miranda on whether his Tight to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’ ” Id. at 104, 96 S.Ct. 321.
Factors relevant in determining whether the accused’s right to cut off questioning has been “scrupulously honored” are: “a) whether the police immediately ceased the interrogation upon defendant’s request, b) whether they resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and provided fresh Miranda warnings, and c) whether they restricted later interrogation to a crime that had not been the subject of the first interrogation.” Jackson v. Wyrick, 730 F.2d 1177, 1179 (8th Cir.1984) (citing Mosley, 423 U.S. at 106, 96 S.Ct. 321)). The emphasis typically is on the first three factors, the last factor being non-dispositive. See, e.g., Brown v. Caspari, 186 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir.1999); Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 322 (8th Cir.1985).
Ordinarily, “to invoke one’s right to remain silent, one must unequivocally express his desire to remain silent.” Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124, 1131 (8th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Al-Muqsit, 191 F.3d 928, 936 (8th Cir.1999)); United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir.1995) (“clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent” required) (citation omitted). However, when the assertion of one’s Fifth Amendment right is ambiguous or equivocal, the law permits further inquiry, but only to clarify whether the accused is in fact invoking that right. See Simmons, 235 F.3d at 1132 n. 3 (after an ambiguous assertion of right to remain silent, questioning “should immediately cease and [the agent] should then inquire of the suspect as to the correct interpreta*971tion of the statement”) (citation omitted); Bobo v. Kolb, 969 F.2d 391, 396 (7th Cir.1992) (same); Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014, 1021 (2d Cir.1989) (same), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 949, 111 S.Ct. 1419, 113 L.Ed.2d 471 (1991). The heightened attention the law accords even to inarticulate requests to be silent is consistent with that right’s undergirding premise that “[t]hrough the exercise of his option to terminate questioning,” it is the accused, and not the interrogators, who “control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103-04, 96 S.Ct. 321.
In this case, once informed of his rights, Astello freely answered the questions put to him during the first hour of the interrogation. There then came a point during the interrogation when Astello decided to halt the direct questioning about his involvement in the crime and talk with his mother. Astello stated: “[I]f you give me a last chance to talk to my mom at least right now before I say anything, cuz I think I’ll just stick with the truth then.” At this juncture, the mandate of Miranda and Mosley required the agents to immediately terminate questioning, see, e.g., Otey v. Grammer, 859 F.2d 575, 579 (8th Cir.1988) (when defendant “appeared unwilling to answer specific questions, interrogation immediately ceased”), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3288, 111 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990); United States v. Udey, 748 F.2d 1231, 1242 (8th Cir.1984) (when defendant “expressed some unwillingness to talk, the interrogation was terminated”), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017, 105 S.Ct. 3477 (1985), and resume only after a significant period of time had passed and fresh Miranda warnings given. See also United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 775-76 (8th Cir.1997).
True, Astello’s was not the clearest invocation of the right to remain silent, though this fact should hardly work an automatic prejudice against him. See Emspak v. United Slates, 349 U.S. 190, 194, 75 S.Ct. 687, 99 L.Ed. 997 (1955) (“ritualistic” or “talismanic” phrases are not always necessary before one invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination). At the very least, any follow-up questions should have been used only to clarify whether Astello was in fact invoking his Fifth Amendment right. For example, in Johnson, 56 F.3d at 955, when asked if he wished to waive his rights, the defendant responded equivocally: “[I]f I tell you anything, you’re just going to use it against me later, aren’t you? ... [Y]ou guys have all the evidence against me. I don’t need to make any statement. I don’t need to say anything.” After clarifying questions from agents, the defendant then stated: “I know I’m going to jail for a long time, the rest of my life, I can’t help myself by talking to you.” Id. We determined that answer to be a “clear” invocation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. Id. The agents “acted prudently,” we observed, “by attempting to clarify whether Johnson was asserting his right tp silence and by not further questioning him after it was clear that Johnson did not want to talk.” Id. (citation omitted).
None of the procedures prescribed by Mosley were followed. Instead, sensing that a confession was close at hand, the agents redoubled their efforts to convince Astello to talk:
Astello: I told you already. I want to talk to my mom first. Then I’ll talk. Yeah. I was involved in it, that’s all. You wanna hear that? I was involved in it.
Enger: We know that.
Astello: I know what went on and everything about it. I told you I need to talk to my mom first.
Enger: Let me ask you what you wanna talk to your mom about. You’re a big boy now.
Astello: Yeah, I know I am. * * *
Enger: Why don’t you do this.... Why don’t you tell us what happened, and when *972we’re done, we’ll give you the opportunity to talk to your mom.
Astello: Okay.
In their repeated attempts to get Astello to talk before consulting with his mother, the agents did not allow Astello to “control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103-04, 96 S.Ct. 321; Campaneria, 891 F.2d at 1021 (agent’s remark that “If you want to talk to us, now is the time to do it” was not aimed at resolving ambiguity but rather at changing defendant’s mind). This is a case “where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 105-06, 96 S.Ct. 321; see also id. at 102, 96 S.Ct. 321 (“To permit the continuation of custodial interrogation after a momentary cessation would clearly frustrate the purpose of Miranda by allowing repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned.”); Wyrick, 730 F.2d at 1179 (“Repeated interrogation despite the defendant’s refusal to give a statement can violate Miranda .... ”); United States ex rel. Riley v. Franzen, 653 F.2d 1153, 1161-62 (7th Cir.) (“[A] single request [to see one’s parent] should be viewed differently than repeated requests, especially if the repetitions are in response to a series of police questions regarding the crime under investigation. Under some circumstances, the latter properly may be’ viewed as an invocation of the suspect’s right to silence .... ”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1067, 102 S.Ct. 617, 70 L.Ed.2d 602 (1981). Because Astello’s right to cut off questioning was not “scrupulously honored,” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104, 96 S.Ct. 321, his incriminating statements of June 19, given as they were under the pressure and influence of two experienced agents, “cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Therefore, this confession should have been suppressed. And for this reason, I dissent.

. In the transcript, the names of the interviewers are denominated by "DE” and "BB” for Don Enger and Bob Birnie respectively. The Defendant is denominated as "RA.” For clarity, I cite to their last names only.