Friday, we looked at Florida v. Powell in which the Supreme Court looked at a version of the Miranda warnings that did not clearly state that an arrestee had the right to have an attorney in the room with him/her while being interrogated while in custody.

Today we look at whether the Supreme Court should have considered Powell in the first place. Powell is an appeal from the Florida Supreme Court which ruled the version of the Miranda warnings used by the Tampa police is unconstitutional. The version used by Tampa police states:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview

The Florida Supreme Court held: “[b]oth Miranda and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution require that a suspect be clearly informed of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning,” and that the warnings given to Kevin Dewayne Powell did not satisfy either the State or the Federal Constitution.

The question is whether the Florida Supreme Court found “independent state grounds” to reverse Powell’s conviction. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights. For the most part these rights, under the Fourteenth Amendment, are binding upon the states. But nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights limits the states from granting its citizens greater rights than are guaranteed in the Constitution. For example while the Supreme Court may have found the Tampa version of the Miranda warnings sufficient to protect Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, the Florida Supreme Court has every right to hold the Tampa version of the Miranda Rights insufficient to protect rights granted in the Florida Constitution.

On remand the Florida Supreme Court has every right to say that confessions made after being read the Tampa version of the Miranda inadmissible as a violation of the Florida Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court as a rule refuses to consider cases where the state court has ruled on the issue and found that it violates the state Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court like any other state court may find that a particular act violates both the state constitution and the Federal Constitution as the Florida Supreme Court did in this case, according to Justice Stevens in his dissent. But since the Supreme Court decision will not have any effect upon Powell if the Florida Supreme Court finds that Powell is protected under the Florida state constitution, the Supreme Court does not take cases where

[t]he state court ‘make[s] clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that the federal cases are being used only for the purpose of guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached.’ . . . [T]he real question is whether ‘the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is … clear from the face of the opinion.”

The U. S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, and joined by every justice except Stevens, states that

the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven; the court at no point expressly asserted that state-law sources gave Powell rights distinct from, or broader than, those delineated in Miranda

But as Justice Stevens points out that the Florida Supreme Court said that the Tampa version of the Miranda rights under neither the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution provided the arrestee with sufficient notice that he/she could have an attorney present during any interrogation it implicitly stated that there are independent state grounds for excluding the confession under the State Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court’s decision is no more than an advisory opinion and the Court should not have accepted the case.

This is the type of activism that members of the majority would reject under other circumstances. The Supreme Court, they would argue, should only accept cases where their opinion would mean something and where they were not interfering with the State Courts rulings on state law.

In Arizona v. Edwards the Supreme Court ruled that once an individual asserted his/her Miranda rights during a custodial interrogation the interrogation could not resume until an attorney was appointed unless the suspect initiated the renewed interrogation. Yesterday in Shatzer v. Maryland, the court ruled that the interrogation could resume, even though the suspect did not initiate the renewed interrogation if a break in custody of at least two weeks occurred between the initial interrogation and the resumption.

In 2003 Hagertown, Maryland police officer Shane Blankenship interrogated Michael Blaine Shatzner regarding an allegation that he sexually abused his young child. At the time Shatzner was in prison on separate charges. Shatzner claimed his rights under Miranda to have an attorney present. The interrogation was terminated. Two and a half years later a different Hagertown officer renewed the interrogation. Shatzner told the officer that he thought the investigation had ended but he agreed to talk and in writing he waived his Miranda rights and gave an incriminating statement. His statement was admitted at trial and he was convicted.

On appeal he challenged the admission of the statement. The Supreme Court ruled that since the second interrogation was more than two weeks after the first, “there is little reason to think that his change of heart regarding interrogation without counsel has been coerced.” But by setting a two week “rule” the Court allows overly zealous police officers to arrest someone every two weeks, interrogate him or her and then release the suspect if a Miranda claim is made, only to repeat the scenario every two weeks until the suspect gives in. This is the very type of badgering Miranda was written to prevent.

Joshua Lee Howe was indicted and tried on charges of conspiracy to commit a robbery and kidnapping resulting in felony murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; felony murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a) & 2; kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) & 2; being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (j)(1) in the Eastern District of Arkansas in relation to the robbery, kidnapping and murder of Jeremy Deshon Gaither.

Howe was acquitted of of felony murder and of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury hung on on the conspiracy and kidnapping counts.

Over the objection of Howe the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice to refiling charges was granted. Then he was reindicted on various charges including the conspiracy and kidnapping counts. He moved to dismiss the conspiracy and kidnapping charges on double jeopardy and collateral estoppel ground. His motion was denied and he appealed.

The Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

Accordingly, once jeopardy has attached and terminated as to a particular offense, the government may not bring a new prosecution or punish the defendant again for the same offense.

But a defendant can be retried on charges where he/she has been placed in jeopardy but jeopardy has not been terminated. This is the case where the jury is hung. But it is not the case where the jury finds a defendant not guilty and then the government charges him/her with a lesser included offense. A lesser included offense is in which all of the elements of the offense are found in the greater offense, For example kidnapping is a lesser included offense of kidnapping resulting in felony murder. For both you must prove kidnapping but for the greater offense you must also proved that it resulted in felony murder.

The Eighth Circuit found that the charging of the lesser included kidnapping charge was not a successive prosecution to the kidnapping resulting in felony murder charge since jeopardy never terminated on the kidnapping resulting in felony murder charge. In the original trial the government charged both the greater offense and the lesser included offense. The jury in that case found him not guilty of the greater offense and hung on the lesser offense. Therefore jeopardy never terminated on the lesser offense and the government can recharge in the new indictment.

As to the conspiracy to kidnap resulting in felony murder in the original trial and the conspiracy to kidnap lesser included offense in the second trial, since the jury hung in the first trial, jeopardy did not terminate and the Fifth Amendment is not violated by pursuing the lesser included offense.

Collateral estoppel prevents the retrial of a charge where a jury in a prior trial necessarily found against the government on an element that the government must prove in the second trial. Since the original jury could have acquitted Howe on the felony murder charges by finding that he was not guilty of the robbery and by hanging on the kidnapping the jury did not necesarily find against the government on the kidnapping charge and the government is not collaterlally estopped from bringing the kidnapping charge in the second trial.

An informant told Detective Josh Davis of the North County Metropolitan
Enforcement Group in Chesterfield, Missouri that David Wise and Brian Sievers were growing marijuana in Sievers’s basement.

Detectives Davis, Jeffrey Seerey, and John Cochran went to Sievers’ house for a “knock and talk.” They knocked on the door. Sievers answered it. The officers identified themselves and told Sievers the purpose of the visit. Sievers said, “Who ratted me out? That’s all I want to know.” [Brilliant, an admission.] The officers then read Sievers his Miranda rights. Sievers then gave a full confession including telling them that there were over a hundred plants in the basement (actually there were 312) and that his friend David Wise was in charge of caring for the plants. [Now who is ratting who out]

After the officers searched the house, with Sievers consent, [Brilliant] he took them to Wise’s St. Louis residence.

This time Seerey and Cochran did the “knock and talk” while Davis stayed in the car with Sievers. They knocked on the door, as Wise is leaving. They ask him if he would prefer to talk outside or inside. Wise says inside. [Just what the officers wanted--a chance to get inside.] Then Wise invites them into his bedroom away from his family. He looked nervous so the officers did a pat search and found a packet of marijuana in his pocket. Seerey tells Wise about the visit to Sievers’. residence. Wise says he doesn’t believe the officers. They bring Davis and Siever inside. Siever tells Wise, “They’re onto us, they got the whole grow.” [Another admission] Wise is read his Miranda rights and he gives a complete statement incriminating himself and Sievers.

Prior to trial Wise moves to suppress his confession, statements, marijuana packet and marijuana seeds found on his dresser. Motion denied.

On appeal the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Wise confirmed the conviction holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Wise, that the statements were properly admitted and that the seizure of the marijuana packet and the seeds were legal.

Surprise, surprise, you voluntarily talk so much both before and after the Miranda warnings and then the evidence is used against you. On top of that you invite the officers into your bedroom where marijuana is in plain view and then they dare to seize it.

If Sievers and Wise had not opened up their big mouths they would not have been arrested. Apparently the informant had not provided enough information for a search of the residence. Otherwise the officers would have gotten a search warrant. But by talking the defendants gave the officers enough information to search their residences and to arrest them. They also gave them the information used to prove the case at trial. I do not know how many times I have told defendants that “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” Police don’t ask question unless they need the information to hurt you and they are smart enough to use whatever you say against you.

Thursday we began a series on the Second Circuit of Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Sattar (Stewart; Yousry). Today we shall continue the series by discussing some of the issues faced by the appellate court.

The prosecution stemmed from Lynne Stewart’s representation of Sheikh Omar
Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman who was convicted of various terrorist crimes resulting from the investigation of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He was sentenced to life in prison. While in prison he was subject to Special Administrative Measures (SAM) since he was considered particularly dangerous. The SAMs limited his ability to communicate with the outside world, particularly the press as well as his political and religious followers in Egypt.

Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar were charged in a seven count indictment and convicted on all counts. Specifically, all three defendants were convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States by violating SAMs imposed upon Abdel Rahman, and various related offenses. Sattar was convicted of conspiring with Taha, Abdel Rahman, and others to murder persons in a foreign country, and with soliciting persons to commit crimes of violence — murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Stewart and Yousry were convicted of providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy, and with conspiracy to provide and conceal such support. Stewart was also convicted of making false statements.

The evidence at the trial showed that after Rahman was convicted Stewart and other lawyer on his legal team visited him in prison. Prior to visiting him they would sign a current copy of the SAMs. The SAMS prohibited him from communicating with his supporters in Egypt and with the press. However on several occasions they delivered messages to and from him regarding activities in Egypt. He was the spiritual leader of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya. During this period al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya was considering ending a cease-fire with its political opponents in Egypt. Ending the cease-fire could result in terrorist acts and death in Egypt and elsewhere.

To find the defendants guilty of conspiring to defraud the government, the jury had to find that they entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government (the administration and enforcement of the SAMs) by deceitful or dishonest means and at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The appellate court used the fact that Stewart, on several occasions signed copies of the SAMs. She did this in order to get permission to visit Rahman at the Federal penitentiary. According to the court she signed the SAMs with no intention to comply with them and therefore she was acting in a deceitful manner.

In Count Five Stewart and Yousry were charged with providing and concealing material support for the conspiracy involving Sattar charged in Count Two to murder political enemies in Egypt. The Court found that the government provided sufficient evidence that Stewart and Yousry provided support to the conspiracy in the form of personnel. According to the government the conspiracy could not have been successful without the blessings of Rahman. By publicizing his support for ending the cease fire they provided material support for the conspiracy.

Stewart argued that as an attorney she had a duty to zealously represent her client and that this representation including assisting him in communication with the outside world. Her intent was to zealously represent her client, not to aid the Islamist group. But the appellate court found that in the process she violated the law. But presumably the matter will be decided by the Supreme Court.

The defendants also argued that their First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights were violated. The trial and appellate courts refused to allow the defendants to challenge the constitutionality of the SAMs. The SAMs limit Rahman’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech. They certainly also limit his ability to communicate with his attorney under the Sixth Amendment. When Stewart visited Rahman in jail a guard was placed outside the door in a way that he could read their lips. On at least one occasion the government secretly videotaped the attorney-client conference.

On Monday we shall conclude this series with an article discussing some of the issues raised by the trial for criminal defense attorneys and their clients.

The California Supreme Court ruled that having a deputy escort an in-custody defendant to the witness seat and sit next to him/her while he/she testifies is not a violation of the defendant’ due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

Lorenzo Stevens was charged with attempting to molest his daughter and giving her crack. His daughter lived with her grandmother. According to her testimony at trial, he called her up and asked her to meet him at Taco Bell. They walked to a truck he used as a residence. He gave her a piece of rock cocaine and attempted to get her to copulate him. She escaped and reported the incident to her grandmother and her mother. The police were called. Stevens led the police on a wild escapade by jumping from roof to roof.

According to his testimony his daughter made up the story. He claimed that she made up the story after he asked her if she was sexually active and if she used drugs.

Prior to testifying he was escorted to the witness seat by a sheriff’s deputy who sat beside him during his testimony. No other witness was escorted by a deputy and deputies did not sit beside any other witness.

While certain courtroom security techniques such as shackling the defendant or requiring him/her to wear jail garb while before the jury are “inherently prejudicial” and require a “manifest need” before they can be imposed having a deputy sit next to the defendant while he/she testifies is not an “inherently prejudicial” act requiring a “manifest need” for such a technique. The Court points out that American citizens are accustomed to having security offices in official places and the jury may not pay any attention to it. But as the dissent, by Justice Moreno points out having a uniformed guard sitting next to the defendant when he testifies, like shackling the defendant or having him/her dressed in jail clothes indicates that the defendant must be separated from the community at large.As Justice Moreno pointed out the use of a uniformed deputy sitting next to the defendant as he testifies violates the presumption of innocence.

In People. Nguyen the California Supreme Court answers the question of whether a juvenile conviction, in which California does not grant a jury trial can serve as a prior conviction under Apprendi In Apprendi the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order to sentence someone to an aggravated sentence all facts must be determined by a jury or by admission. The Supreme Court left one exception to the rule and that is prior convictions. It said:

Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, under California law, a finding that a crime was committed in juvenile court is an adjudication, not a conviction and as Justice Kennard points out in dissent one reason for this is that a juvenile is not permitted to have a jury trial.

Nguyen, as part of a plea bargain, plead to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and submitted the question of whether a prior juvenile adjudication for assault with a deadly weapon was a strike under the Three Strikes Law to a Court trial. The court found that it was a strike and therefore doubled his sentence from 16 months to 32 months. If he had two strikes he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 25 years to life.

The majority gives two reasons for finding that an adjudication in a juvenile matter can be used a prior conviction in a three strikes case despite not being found to be true by a jury.

First in the adult matter all findings of fact are made by a jury. The jury is allowed to determine whether or not there is a prior conviction and whether the conviction is for a matter that comes within the purview of the Three Strikes Law. Since the failure to submit the juvenile case to a jury is not in the case for which the person is going to be sentenced the matter is not strictly one that comes under Apprendi.

Second, under Apprendi the issue which triggers the additional punishment is not the felonious conduct which lead to the juvenile adjudication, but rather the fact of the prior adjudication. As the Supreme Court stated in Apprendi it is the fact of the conviction, not the felonious conduct which increases the sentence.

If the issue is not the felonious conduct, but rather the fact of a prior conviction and if we assume that for purposes of the three strikes law a conviction and an adjudication are the same thing as the Court does then the defendant gets a trial on all matters which increase the sentence since he/she is entitled to a trial on whether or not there was a prior conviction.

But as Kennard points out the purpose for doubling the sentence for a prior strike is not the fact of the conviction but rather the fact that the individual continues to perform felonious conduct. Furthermore Appprendi justifies the prior conviction exception to the requirement that any fact used to increase a sentence must be approved by a jury by arguing that

unlike virtually any other consideration used to enlarge the possible penalty for an offense . . . a prior conviction must itself have been established through procedures satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees.

Thus if a prior conviction is only exempt from the need for being found by a jury if it is based on fair notice, reasonable doubt and a jury trial the facts of a juvenile conviction, found without a jury trial cannot be used to increase a sentence.

The Obama administration continues to make plans for indefinite detention for many of the detainees at Guantanamo.

Indefinite detention violates many of the basic beliefs of our founders expressed in the Constitution. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The Fifth Amendment guarantees “due process of law.” It starts out saying, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;” The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. It also requires that the accused have the right of confrontation and the use the state for compulsory process to obtain favorable witnesses. The Eighth Amendment forbids excessive bail.

Furthermore the United States has signed international treaties guaranteeing alleged terrorist the right to a speedy trial. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees to all the right to a speedy and public trial.

Yesterday we looked at a Fifth Circuit case exploring the Double Jeopardy Clause in a matter involving three Enron Corporation officials.

About ten hours after I wrote the post the Supreme Court issued a decision in another case involving an Enron official, F. Steve Yeager, on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Yeager was a vice president of Enron in charge of their broadband division. The company kept issuing positive reports about the division and stock kept going up in price. While the stock was selling well Yeager sold stock he owned in the company making a 19 million dollar profit. The positive reports were misleading since the division was not doing well and as we all know shortly thereafter Enron went into bankruptcy.

Yeager was charged with 126 counts in an indictment. In Count i he was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and security fraud. In Counts 2 through 6 he was charged with various counts of wire fraud and security fraud. The rest of the counts involved insider trading and money laundering the profits from the insider trading.

He was acquitted on the first six counts and the jury hung on the remaining counts. In a superseding indictment the government moved to retry him on some of the insider trading counts. Yeager moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied his motion and the question before the Supreme Court was whether double jeopardy could be found where the jury hung on the counts to be relitigated.

The traditional case of double jeopardy is where the government attempts to reprosecute an individual for the same crime that the person was found not guilty in a previous trial. But it has also been used where the appellate court finds that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. Another use of double jeopardy is what is called issue preclusion. Issue preclusion is where a necessary issue has been answered in favor of the defendant in a previous trial and now the government wants to retry the same issue. For example, Yeager claimed that in order to convict him on the insider trading charges a jury would have to reconsider at least one of the issues that the jury in the first trial must have found in his favor in order to acquit him on the first six counts.

What the Supreme Court ruled was that a jury in a new trial could not be required to go back and reconsider an issue that the previous jury necessarily found in his favor. But the Supreme Court permitted the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case and determine if a jury necessarily would have had to consider an issue which will have to be considered by a new jury considering the current indictment. Both Justice Kennedy in a concurring opinion and Justice Alito in a dissenting opinion strongly recommended that the Fifth Circuit carefully consider the issue. But Samuel Buffone, one of Yeager’s lawyers said, “We are confident we will prevail. We are down to a very narrow factual issue the court of appeals has already resolved once in our favor and has an opportunity to revisit if they like.” If the new jury will be forced to reconsider an issue necessarily considered by the previous jury the indictment must be dismissed to prevent Yeager from being placed in double jeopardy.

Obviously we are not through with Enron yet.

In Michigan v. Jackson the Supreme Court held that if a defendant asserts his/her right to counsel at an arraignment or similar hearing any waiver of the right to have counsel present when the police initiate an interrogation is considered invalid. In Montejo v. Louisiana the Supreme Court yesterday overruled Jackson

In Montejo, a murder case, the defendant remained quiet while the Louisiana Court at what it calls a 72 hour hearing automatically appointed counsel. But before counsel could meet with the client the police got the defendant to show the police where the murder weapon was located. While the defendant was helping the police find the weapon and after Miranda warnings were given and waived the defendant wrote a letter to the family of the victim apologizing for killing the victim. Over objection this letter was read at trial and the defendant was convicted of murder.

Under a strict reading of Jackson the facts in Montejo do not apply since there was no request for counsel. But the Supreme Court was worried about the uniform application of the law, since the states divide with approximately half requiring a defendant to request counsel and approximately half automatically appointing counsel. The rule of law should not depend on whether the state requires a request or automatically appoints counsel.

But the underlying reason for Jackson, according to the Court, the prevention of badgering by the police once a defendant requests counsel is not applicable in those states that automatically appoint counsel. Furthermore the Court found in an opinion by Justice Scalia that defendants are sufficiently protected by Miranda, which requires that defendants be told that they have a right to the presence of counsel at an in custody interrogation, Edwards v. Arizona, which held that once a defendant had asserted his/her Miranda rights further interrogation could not occur until an attorney was appointed, and Minnick v. Mississippi which held that the attorney must actually be present at any interrogation after the defendant asserts his/her Miranda rights. Weighing the injury to the truth finding function of our courts against the protection of Fifth and Sixth amendment rights provided by Miranda, Edwards, and Minnick the majority of the Court found that Jackson’s protection of the defendant’s rights was outweighed by society’s need for valid confessions.

Justice Stevens, in dissent, points out that the majority misunderstand the basis for Jackson. It is not based upon the Fifth Amendment need to protect the defendant from badgering as is Edwards, but rather it is based on the Sixth Amendment need to ” ‘protec[t] the unaided layman at critical confrontations with his adversary,’ ” Unlike Edwards, and like Jackson, Montejo involves post arraignment police interrogation. It is only at arraignment that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is incurred. While Justice Stevens agrees that the Louisiana Supreme Court does a great disservice to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Jackson. He would merely override the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision and he would maintain the ruling of Jackson under the rule of stare decisis, particularly in light of the fact that none of the parties asked that it be overruled.