Court Opinion

ID: 9469231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:35:43.8784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:17.802578
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not lightly dissent from the majority opinion, for I am convinced that some courts, in their eagerness to effectuate fully the prophylactic safeguards of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (Miranda), often apply a principle “broader than that required to *1338implement the policy of Miranda itself.” United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor am I persuaded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (Edwards), is necessarily required by Miranda; indeed, over four years ago I joined an opinion for this court sitting en banc which rejected a per se rule prohibiting waiver of the Miranda right to counsel closely analogous to the rule subsequently applied by the Court in Edwards. See United States v. RodriguezGastelum, 569 F.2d 482, 483 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 919, 98 S.Ct. 2266, 56 L.Ed.2d 760 (1978). However, I am obligated to apply the law as announced by the Supreme Court. Because I believe the majority has misapprehended the clear import of Edwards and Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) (Innis), I dissent.
The majority twice asserts that Thierman “initiated” the questioning within the meaning of Edwards by recalling Barkman from Pat’s apartment. Ante at 1333-1334 & n.2, at 1335-1336 n.5. With all due respect, the majority’s conclusion is overly hasty. Edwards emphasizes that “additional safeguards are necessary when the accused asks for counsel .... ” 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884. Accordingly, “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.” Id. (footnote omitted). As I read Edwards, therefore, one cannot waive the right to counsel guaranteed by Miranda, once it has unequivocally been asserted, by “initiating” a discussion only in response to direct interrogation or to words or conduct that constitute the “functional equivalent” of express questioning within the meaning of Innis. Logically, one cannot initiate custodial interrogation merely by responding to custodial interrogation.
If the majority means that a suspect “initiates” a conversation under Edwards by knowingly and voluntarily offering to resume answering questions, after the right to counsel is invoked but before any subsequent “interrogation,” then the majority is correct. But the conclusion that Thierman initiated the conversation with Barkman hinges upon the conclusion that Pedersen’s comments and Barkman’s conduct did not constitute interrogation. “Absent such interrogation, there would have been no infringement of the right that [Thierman] invoked and there would be no occasion to determine whether there had been a valid waiver. Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, makes this sufficiently clear.” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 486, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. If, therefore, the “words or actions” of Bark-man and Pedersen were of the type “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect,” Innis, 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1689 (footnotes omitted), Thierman was im-permissibly interrogated under Edwards and did not initiate the exchange with Barkman by agreeing to talk with him again.
It is on this point that I strongly disagree with the majority’s reasoning. I conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in determining that the conduct of the police after Thierman invoked his right to counsel did not constitute interrogation. The question presented is not, of course, whether the conversation in this case is more or less “evocative” than that in Innis; contrary to the majority’s assumption, the Innis test focuses on whether the police reasonably should have known that their words or conduct were likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect himself. In other words, the evocative nature of the language used is measured not by its abstract qualities, but by its relation to what the police knew or, in the circumstances of a given case, should have known the suspect’s reaction to it would be.
There can be no doubt that Barkman and Pedersen knew, or at least should have known, exactly what they were doing and therefore must be held to have intended that Thierman would confess in response to *1339their words and actions. The majority discounts Pedersen’s later characterization of his comment that it was “too bad” that Pat, Thierman’s girl friend, had to become involved, by labeling his characterization “equivocal.” Far from it. At the suppression hearing, Pedersen was examined by Thierman’s attorney and indicated that he had some “general conversation” with Thi-erman while Barkman went to question Pat. After first denying that the conversation had in any way concerned the missing money orders, Pedersen refreshed his recollection by reading his investigation report and admitted that he had, in fact, discussed the money orders with Thierman at that time. Pedersen and two fellow officers then “talked about him [Thierman] for possibly 10 or 15 minutes.” During that conversation, there was some discussion that it was too bad that Pat and others had to be involved. Pedersen forthrightly admitted that this conversation occurred in Thier-man’s presence, that he looked at Thierman while speaking, and that he “meant for him to hear that.” Finally, when asked whether he was “trying to get [Thierman] to respond to that,” Pedersen answered, “Yes, I guess I was.” 1 Viewed in their context, then, the statements of Pedersen are clearly not equivocal at all; having already admitted that he spoke in Thierman’s presence while looking at him and intending for him to hear, Pedersen’s last answer is as close to a direct admission that his comments were intended to induce a confession from Thier-man as one may ever reasonably hope to come across.
This fact decisively sets this case apart from Innis, where the conversation was “nothing more than a dialogue between the *1340two officers to which no response from the [suspect] was invited,” 446 U.S. at 302, 100 S.Ct. at 1690, and where there was no suggestion in the record that the police intended their conversation to elicit an incriminating response. Id. at 303 n.9, 100 S.Ct. at 1690. Here there is. Indeed, the Court in Innis emphasized that “where a police practice is designed to elicit an incriminating response from the accused, it is unlikely that the practice will not also be one which the police should have known was reasonably likely to have that effect.” Id. at 301-02 n.7,100 S.Ct. at 1690. In short, this is not a case like Innis in which the suspect was confronted by some “subtle compulsion” by “a few offhand remarks” between police officers. Id. at 303, 100 S.Ct. at 1690-91. Rather, this is a case where the police capitalized on their knowledge that Thierman desperately wanted to protect Pat by deliberately attempting to secure a confession after Thierman had invoked his right to counsel. While Pedersen and the other officers remained with Thierman, attempting to persuade him that it was too bad that Pat had to become involved, Bark-man added to the pressure by leaving for Pat’s apartment. The record unmistakably indicates that Barkman intended to interrogate Pat and that Thierman was aware of his purpose. Even under our flexible Rodriguez-Gastelum test, it is at least arguable that all this was an impermissible attempt to “badger the suspect or bring pressure intended to induce a change of mind.” United States v. Rodriguez-Gastelum, supra, 569 F.2d at 488. Pursuant to Edwards and Innis, it is clearly impermissible police-initiated interrogation.
If I were writing on a clean slate, however, I might well join the majority in affirming Thierman’s conviction. The officers investigating this crime followed Miranda as best they could by ceasing all direct questioning once Thierman invoked his right to counsel. Their conduct was in all respects undertaken in perfect good faith and simply manifested their desire to uncover the truth by use of all the investigative and psychological tools at their disposal. I believe the law should commend police officers who determinedly ferret out confessions while simultaneously endeavoring to uphold the Miranda safeguards. If I had a choice, I would hold that waiver of the Miranda right to counsel is measured by all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and may in a proper case be implied from a suspect’s knowing and intelligent decision to resume questioning, regardless of who initiated the conversation, after the right to counsel has been expressly invoked. Yet the courts of appeals rarely write on such a clean slate. Although I believe that this case demonstrates the overbreadth of the highly technical rules announced in Edwards, I cannot decipher a principled ground upon which to distinguish that case. I regret that I must dissent.

. Pedersen was questioned at the suppression hearing as follows:
Q Sir, I’d like to ask a few questions concerning — you were present when Detective Barkman was interrogating Mr. Thierman; is that correct?
A I was in the apartment, not in the same room, during all of the time that Detective Barkman was questioning Mr. Thierman.
Q All right. You at some point came to realize that Barkman had ceased his interrogation and had gone down to see Pat Grogan; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at that time you were in the apartment with Mr. Thierman, together with Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Zembledge?
A Yes.
Q And at that point in time you had some conversation with Mr. Thierman; is that correct?
A General conversation, yes.
Q And you questioned him about the whereabouts of money orders?
A No, I did not question him at this time.
Q You made a report in this case; did you not, sir?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did it say in your report that you had a conversation with Mr. Thierman concerning money orders?
A May I look at my report?
Q Certainly. It’s page three.
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. And did you in fact do that or did you put something that was mistaken in your report?
A I had a conversation with him. I did not ask him any questions.
Q You had a conversation with him but you did not ask him anything?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the conversation was about the stolen money orders?
A Partially.
Q Well, you said in here that that was the center of the conversation.
A Part of the conversation, we talked about him for possibly ten or 15 minutes.
Q And you also, there was some discussion about it being too bad about involving Pat or some of these other people in this thing; do you recall having that discussion?
A Yes, I do.
Q And that was in the presence of Mr. Thierman?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever look at him when you said something like that?
A Yes.
Q You meant for him to hear that?
A Yes.
Q And you were trying to get him to respond to that; were you not?
A Yes, I guess I was.
Q And it was after — I believe you said this conversation went on for what, did you say ten minutes?
A With that and other topics, yes.
Q And it was during this period of time then that he said he wanted to speak to Barkman again, “Go get Barkman, I’ll talk to him”?
A Yes.
MR. TANDY: All right. I don’t have anything else.
R.T. 170-72.