Court Opinion

ID: 9646844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:13:08.629366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:42.654773
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Appellant’s confession should have been suppressed. It was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and State v. Oldham, 618 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. banc 1981).
Appellant had been arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, on January 20,1978, by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for robbery of the Farmers State Bank in Ro-sendale, Missouri, which occurred on January 16, 1978. A federal bank robbery indictment was returned in Kansas City on January 18, 1978. Also pending against appellant was a three count felony complaint in Holt County, Missouri, filed January 21,1978, wherein appellant was charged with stealing $4,200 from the Farmers State Bank, as well as with armed criminal action and tampering with Stewart’s automobile.
Upon his arrest in Las Vegas, appellant was given his Miranda warnings, declined to give a statement, and requested an attorney. He was returned to Kansas City where, on February 2, 1978, he was arraigned by the federal authorities on the bank robbery charge, and appointed a federal public defender. Defendant talked with his lawyer that same day. At this point, under Edwards v. Arizona, supra, and State v. Oldham, supra, defendant was not subject to further interrogation by the police unless defendant himself initiated contact with the police. The following day, February 3,1978, Sergeant Anderson of the Missouri Highway Patrol, Agent Holtslag of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and two county sheriffs went to the Jackson County jail where appellant was being held to interrogate him. This contact was initiated by the officers, not appellant, and “Buckles’ indication [that] he would see what the officers wanted” cannot be taken as an initiation by defendant of exchanges with the officers.
Agent Holtslag, who was the chief investigating officer in regard to the bank robbery, was present for possible additional federal violations and to assist in questioning appellant, because, as he put it, he had “the most well-rounded knowledge of the events” prior to the bank robbery. Sergeant Anderson was there to investigate the bank robbery and what he believed to be a possible murder. One Donald Stewart, a resident of Columbia, Missouri, had not been seen since January 13,1978, and Stewart’s car, a Chevrolet Nova, had been used in the bank robbery getaway and then abandoned. Each of the four officers was a veteran officer, their combined experience totaling 40 to 50 years in law enforcement work. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had solved the bank robbery (which the agent said was not well planned or professionally executed) in less than forty-eight hours and, as said, within four days had located and arrested appellant.1 It was the theory of the state that appellant had killed Stewart to obtain the automobile to use in the bank robbery, so the officers, while professing no further interest in the bank robbery, were in fact desirous of connecting the two (which the state did at trial to prove intent, motive and premeditation. See part II of principal opinion). The officers, either singly or in combination, were aware of the foregoing as they embarked upon the interrogation of appellant.
Sergeant Anderson, who conducted the interrogation, knew before going to the jail that Buckles was represented by counsel, but made no effort to contact appellant’s *926lawyer before the interview. It is unclear from the record whether the other law enforcement officers also knew this prior to the first few minutes of the interview, but it is undisputed that appellant before making any statements whatsoever told all four investigators at the outset that he was represented by counsel who had advised him “not to talk to any law enforcement officers.” One of the officers then asked, “[A]bout the bank robbery?” to which Buckles replied, “Yes.”2 Buckles was again given his Miranda warnings, asked to sign a waiver of his rights and refused to do so. After further questioning, he made incriminating statements concerning the murder of Stewart and then signed the waiver. At his trial, over objection and motion to suppress, his statements were introduced against him.
On appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his February 3 statement and admitting same in evidence, because taken in violation of his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments right to counsel. “[OJnce a defendant has challenged the admissibility of a statement or confession made while in police custody, the burden is on the state to demonstrate its elicitation comported with controlling constitutional requirements and that the statement was voluntarily made.” State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 158 (Mo. banc 1979).
Miranda held “that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the [fifth amendment] privilege .... ” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1626, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The fifth amendment right to counsel depends on in-custody interrogation, not on a charge or charges having been filed. The Supreme Court in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), pointed out that the Arizona Supreme Court in concentrating on the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession, determined by the totality of the circumstances, misunderstood, as does the principal opinion herein in its reliance on the totality of the circumstances, “the requirement for finding a valid waiver of the right to counsel, once invoked.” That depends, instead, upon a showing that defendant “understood his right to counsel and knowingly and intelligently relinquished it.” Id. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884. Edwards established an objective means of determining whether the right to counsel, once invoked, has been honored by the interrogating officers. The Court stated that, once a suspect has requested counsel, he cannot be subject to further interrogation without counsel, unless he initiates the contact. Id. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85. Establishment of this easy-to-follow rule gives lower courts guidelines to follow and eliminates the need for a case-by-case analysis which results in “inconsistent results based on virtually indistinguishable facts.” Note, Edwards v. Arizona: The Burger Court Breathes New Life into Miranda, 69 Cal.L.Rev. 1734, 1744 (1980-81). This court in State v. Oldham, 618 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. banc 1981) applied Edwards for the first time, stating:
Resolution by this Court of the issue presented has been simplified by the guidance now found in the very recent case of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 [101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378] (1981), which was not available to the trial judge, the parties at time of submission nor the Western District at time of transfer.
Id. at 648-49. The Oldham court formulated the following test, which consists of asking two questions, to determine whether a defendant’s right to counsel has been violated: “(1) Did the accused, after having expressed a desire for assistance of counsel, initiate further communication? (2) If the *927answer to one is ‘yes’ did the accused do so voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently?” Id. at 649. Oldham further holds that if the answer to (1) is no the inquiry ends and the confession is inadmissible.
Here, the accused had expressed a desire for assistance of counsel, thereby expressing his inability to act in his own best interests, and was in fact represented by appointed counsel. The fact that there were two sovereigns prosecuting appellant under different charges and that his appointed counsel was for the federal charge does not change this. To make that the determinative factor would be to encourage circumvention of a defendant’s constitutional rights. United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d 404, 407 (1st Cir. 1981). It would permit officers to interrogate a defendant about any suspected criminal activity except the specific charge for which counsel had been appointed. Whether his appointed counsel would have defended appellant in court with respect to the state felony charges or not, the federally appointed counsel was the only counsel appellant had at the time.3 This fact was known to the interrogating officers prior to the questioning that elicited the incriminating responses, as was the fact that there were both state and federal charges pending against appellant. There is no reason why appellant’s appointed counsel, at this early stage, would limit his advice not to talk to law enforcement officers to the federal bank robbery charge when various state charges interrelated with the bank robbery and growing out of it were pending, or why the experienced officers would expect otherwise. There is no question that the officers, not the accused, initiated the further communication which took place at the Jackson County jail. Because the officers initiated the interview after appellant had invoked his fifth amendment right to counsel, it is unnecessary to answer the second question set out in Oldham.
Although the principal opinion recognizes that once a defendant is represented by counsel he is not subject to further questioning unless he initiates further communication with his interrogator, Edwards v. Arizona, supra, it avoids application of the rule by taking the position that appellant never invoked his right to counsel for anything other than federal bank robbery charge. This ignores appellant’s original request for counsel upon arrest, his subsequent interview with counsel and the blanket advice not to talk to law enforcement officers, and requires that appellant’s answer “yes” to the officers’ question “About the bank robbery?” be treated as amounting to more than a direct answer to the precise question put; that it be taken, first, as amounting to the officers’ being assured by appellant that his lawyer said it was all right to talk to them about any suspected crimes other than the bank robbery (even though the officers were highly suspicious, if not convinced, that the car theft and disappearance of its owner were directly connected to the bank robbery) and, second, a willingness on appellant’s part, despite his having earlier requested counsel, now to submit to questioning without advice of counsel as to all else other than the bank robbery.
The facts are that a three count felony complaint had been filed by the Holt County prosecuting attorney on January 21, 1978, and was pending against appellant when counsel was appointed for him by the federal magistrate on February 2, 1978, on which day appellant talked with his lawyer. These facts were known to the law enforcement officers. There is nothing in the record to support the idea that appellant’s counsel was not aware of the three count state felony complaint, all counts of which grew out of the same bank robbery, or that counsel limited his advice to advising appellant not to talk about the bank robbery. On the contrary, the record shows that appellant told the officers at the outset of the *928February 3, 1978, interrogation that his lawyer had advised him not to talk to law enforcement officers.
Why was the question, “About the bank robbery?”, put to appellant? It is fair to say the federal and state officers, who were working as a team, knew that appellant had invoked his fifth amendment right to counsel (he told them he had a lawyer) and that his sixth amendment right to counsel had attached (Agent Holtslag, in particular, testified about this), that appellant had been advised in broad terms not to talk, and that they needed a waiver if they were to interrogate defendant further, regardless of whether the questions were as to federal or state suspected crimes. The question put was deft and clever, but it produced only a colorable waiver, far short of meeting the government’s burden of showing a knowing, intelligent and voluntary relinquishment or abandonment by appellant of a known right or privilege. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. at 482, 101 S.Ct. at 1883. The question did not call for a response from appellant as to whether counsel had said it was all right to talk with law enforcement officers about anything but the bank robbery. It does not follow that because counsel said not to talk about the bank robbery that counsel had said it was all right to talk about anything and everything else. That question was never put to appellant. Appellant answered the question put. He did not say he was free or willing to talk about matters other than the bank robbery.
If appointed counsel had done his job (and we cannot assume counsel was substandard or did not give appellant sound advice), appellant would have answered such a question, had it been put to him, in the negative. We all know that his lawyer would not have told him to talk to law enforcement officers as to the whereabouts of the missing man whose automobile he had stolen to commit the bank robbery, if for no other reason that that it might bear on the issues in the bank robbery case.4 The principal opinion proceeds as if the question put to appellant about not talking to the officers were “Only about the bank robbery?” or “Just about the bank robbery?”. But that was not the question asked. Significantly, the officers did not ask appellant whether counsel had said it would be all right for appellant to talk with law enforcement officers as to the whereabouts of Donald Stewart.
Although the principal opinion attempts to distinguish Edwards and Oldham from the instant case, the facts in all three cases are quite similar. The defendants in the three cases were all subjected to custodial interrogation. All three defendants during an earlier interrogation had indicated that they wanted to exercise their fifth amendment right to counsel. Subsequently, law enforcement authorities initiated contact with the defendants — none of whom during the subsequent interrogation requested counsel — and the contact resulted in incriminating statements which, in Edwards and Oldham on similar facts to those before us, were held inadmissible.
The principal opinion also relies on the fact that appellant signed a waiver. Such reliance is misplaced. In the Oldham case, the defendant also signed a waiver.5 This did not avail the state, once a violation of the Edwards rule occurred. An express written waiver does not inevitably establish waiver. The question remains whether defendant in fact effectively waived his Miranda rights. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 1757, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). Edwards also holds that “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.” 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884. *929It is true that appellant after the officers initiated their interrogation of him about the disappearance of the victim, asked to see a photograph of the victim, but this was a response from appellant to the interrogation initiated by the officers and constitutes neither an initiation of further communication by the appellant in the sense of Edwards nor a predicate for finding a subsequent waiver. Nor can Buckles’ inquiry as to whether they could “make a deal” constitute a waiver, as it was clearly in response to the police initiated statement that the Minnesota trip of Buckles and the victim had been traced. One of the necessary facts that must be found before the waiver question is even addressed is that “the accused, not the police, reopened the dialogue with the authorities.” Id. at 486 n.9, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 n.9. That necessary fact is missing here. Under Edwards, once appellant invoked his right to counsel, as it is conceded he did here, there was no waiver because the subsequent interrogation was police initiated.
Not only is the first test of Oldham not met here, but the second test is not, either. Despite the principal opinion’s invocation of “totality of circumstances”, there is no evidence that appellant initiated further communication with the officers or that if he did so it was done voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Instead, appellant did no more than react to the accusations of the officers — that they were there to talk about Donald Stewart and that they knew about the Minnesota trip taken by the two. Appellant’s reactions to this pressure cannot be considered a waiver of his Miranda rights, no matter if the trial court did find otherwise. The principal opinion is in error in saying it is a matter of credibility. On the stated facts, there was no valid waiver of his right to counsel, earlier invoked. There are no facts present showing that appellant intelligently and knowingly relinquished his right to counsel with respect to the homicide under investigation. He was never asked about this specifically or given a chance to refuse counsel before committing himself.
The trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over objection, the incriminating statements obtained in violation of appellant’s fifth and fourteenth amendment rights and the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

. On April 25, 1978, appellant pleaded guilty in federal court to the bank robbery charge and was sentenced to fifteen years.

. One of the attorneys for the state erroneously attempted to argue at the hearing on the motion for new trial that the question put to appellant after he said his lawyers had told him not to talk to any law enforcement officers was “if that was just concerning the bank robbery.” However, it is to be noted that the question actually put to appellant was not so limited, a fact not discussed or considered by the principal opinion.

. In fact, counsel was not appointed for appellant on the state charge until December 29, 1978. His federal counsel acted on behalf of appellant on the state charges by requesting dismissal of the state charge on April 25, 1978, and asking if that were not done that appellant be given a speedy trial.

. “[T]he primary office performed by appointed counsel parallels the office of privately retained counsel.... His principal responsibility is to serve the undivided interests of his client.” Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 204, 100 S.Ct. 402, 409, 62 L.Ed.2d 355 (1979).

. This fact is not set out in the opinion, but it appears in the record from the testimony of the officer who interrogated appellant.