Court Opinion

ID: 9489418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:15:31.680839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:31.563794
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
It is clear that I conceded too much in my original dissent. I agreed with the original majority that the state court’s finding that Feltrop was not in custody when he made his first incriminating statement was entitled to a presumption of correctness. Now, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holding that this “ultimate ‘in custody’ determination” is subject to de novo review, Thompson v. Keohane, — U.S.-,-, 116 S.Ct. 457, 465, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), I even more resolutely believe that police obtained Feltrop’s initial statement in violation of his Miranda rights. In my view, we must reverse the United States District Court and direct that court to remand to the state court with directions to release Feltrop or to give him a new trial within a reasonable period of time.
*1183In this case, the presumption of correctness with respect to the state court’s determination of the factual circumstances is overcome by the state court’s omission of undisputed, relevant facts. While I do not quarrel with — and presume correct — the facts set out by the state court, the facts which are not set out by the state court cause me significant trouble. Therefore, unlike the majority, I do not believe we can properly meet our obligation to conduct an independent review of the circumstances of Feltrop’s interrogation by simply relying on the factual statement as provided by the state court.
In my view, the essential, undisputed missing facts are as follows:
1. Sergeant Speidel suspected that Fel-trop was involved in Barbara Roam’s death when he contacted Feltrop for questioning. (Trial Tr. at 124.) The Missouri Supreme Court was either speaking hyper-technically or simply wrong in stating that Feltrop only became a suspect after he offered his initial admission that a struggle occurred between he and the victim. See State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Mo.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991). It is undisputed that Sergeant Spei-del connected Feltrop, who had recently reported his girlfriend missing to Sergeant Speidel, with a composite drawing of a person seen near the site where an unidentified torso was discovered in St. Charles County. (Trial Tr. at 998-1001, 1004, 1019.) Sergeant Speidel even testified that he suspected Fel-trop committed a crime related to his girlfriend’s disappearance.
2. Sergeant Speidel reported his suspicions to the St. Charles Sheriffs Departs ment, who asked him to contact Feltrop and arrange a meeting between their investigators and Feltrop. (Id. at 1005.) Sergeant Speidel went to Feltrop’s home several times, but could not find him. (Id.) He then left his business card with a neighbor, asking that Feltrop call him. (Id. at 1007.) Later that night, Sergeant Speidel returned to Fel-trop’s home and told him that the only way he could obtain any information about his missing girlfriend was if he went with Sergeant Speidel to the police station that night. (Id. at 1021-22). Feltrop drove his car to the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, escorted by Sergeant Speidel. (Id. at 1022).
3. When Feltrop arrived at the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, he was placed in a small, nine-foot-by-nine-foot room and kept there for at least two hours until the St. Charles County investigators arrived. (Trial Tr. 125-26). During this time, he was never told he was free to leave.
4. The interview lasted from approximately 11:45 p.m. until 1:10 a.m. or 1:20 a.m. Near the end of the interview, Kaiser, a St. Charles County investigator, told Feltrop that he was pretty sure the severed torso that had been found in St. Charles County was Roam and he wanted to know how the torso got there. (Trial Tr. at 1048-50).
In addition to omitting essential facts, the majority mischaracterizes several conclusions of the Missouri Supreme Court as factual findings. For example, the state court’s determinations that (1) Feltrop voluntarily followed Sergeant Speidel to the station and (2) he was free to leave at all times prior to making the incriminating statement are conclusions, not findings of fact. The findings go well beyond “basic, primary, or historical ... recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” See Thompson, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 464 (internal quotations omitted). The state court’s ultimate conclusions are not entitled to a presumption of correctness and we must review them de novo.
When all relevant facts are considered and when the legal conclusions of the state court are set aside, it becomes apparent that no reasonable person in Feltrop’s position would have believed that he was free to leave and that his Miranda rights were violated. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.