Andre Johnson was convicted of possession of a gun by a convicted felon, possession of cocaine and possession of a weapon in connection with a drug offense.

An undercover officer, Jason Bolte, parked his car in a high crime area on the west side of Cincinnati. A car with three people in it pulled up and parked behind him. A passenger wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt got out of the car and made a transaction, trading money for a couple of small piece of a white substance. Bolte called for uniformed officers to make the arrest. Johnson, no longer wearing the sweatshirt, attempted to flee when the officers tried to perform a pat shirt on him. An officer used a taser on him. He fell to the ground revealing a gun in his waistband. He was arrested. The car was searched. The sweatshirt was found. Crack and powder cocaine were found in its pockets.

After he was indicted he moved to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle. The Court ruled that the original detention was a valid Terry stop. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that an officer could temporarily detain an individual if he/she had “a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur.” Based upon Bolte’s observation of the crack purchase the officers easily had a reasonable suspicion. Finding the gun gave the officers probable cause to arrest him. ¹ An arrest would provide probable cause to search Johnson. To search the vehicle they would need probable cause to believe that they would find evidence in the car. Since Johnson was in custody and could not obtain a weapon from the car. But they had probable cause to believe that the gray sweatshirt was in the car and the court felt that they had probable cause to look for ammunition.

During the trial Johnson complained to the judge that his lawyer had not properly told him about the possible consequences of a conviction and that if he had known he would have accepted the proffered plea bargain. The judge said “Mr. Johnson, you’re the person in this room with felony convictions and that makes your credibility suspect. I know [your attorney] to be a capable, talented, honest attorney whose intentions are always to represent his client to the best of his ability.” The Sixth Circuit while admitting that the statement might not be appropriate did not find it to violate the Constitution or to mandate a reversal of the conviction. The Court refused to hold a hearing on whether the lawyer was providing incompetent counsel. To provide incompetent counsel the lawyer must not only act in a way that competent counsel would not act but the lawyer’s actions must result in injury to the defendant. Since at the time of the request, the trial was in progress the judge refused to hold a hearing since she did not know the effect of counsel’s actions on the conclusion of the trial. Therefore the appellate court found no error on the part of the trial judge and it pointed out that Johnson could file a writ of habeas corpus challenging the lawyer’s representation.

A defendant has an absolute right to testify or not to testify at his/her trial. When the judge found out that Johnson planned to testify she asked Johnson’s attorney if he had gone over the possible consequences of Johnson testifying with Johnson. (If the lawyer was so great–see above, the judge should have assumed that the lawyer as any decent lawyer would have done had gone over the possible consequences with Johnson.) She then told Johnson that if he testified the U. S. Attorney would be allowed to cross examine him about the details of his prior conviction. She then called a recess so Johnson could talk the matter over with his lawyer. On appeal Johnson claimed that the judge’s lecture scared him into giving up his right to testify. The appellate panel disagreed saying that the judge was merely explaining his rights to him so that he could make an intelligent choice and upheld his conviction.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed denial of a writ of habeas corpus due to a failure to comply with the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to have counsel present at all critical stages of the prosecution after the initiation of the adversarial process. Thus once charges are filed the prosecution cannot deny the defendant the right to have counsel present at significant events in the case. One of those significant event, of course, is the giving of a statement by the defendant. ¹

David Ayers was a security guard for the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. As part of his compensation and to insure the safety of the residents he was given a low cost apartment in the building. Accompanied by one of the residents he went to the apartment of Dorothy Brown to pick her up after she fell down. The next day her body was found with numerous injuries. Ayers was eventually arrested and indicted.

While he was in custody he was befriended by Donald Hutchinson, a fellow inmate assigned to the same jail pod as Ayers. Hutchinson contacted the inspectors assigned to Ayers’ case and told them that Ayers had admitted to murdering Brown. After the officers apparently hinted ² to Hutchinson that they needed to know what weapon Ayers used and how much money he stole from Brown, Hutchinson returned to the cell and obtained the information from Ayers. He then contacted the officers again and gave them the information.

In the trial court Ayers moved to suppress the statements given to the officers at their second meeting with Hutchinson. The trial court denied the motion but the appellate courts granted the writ of habeas corpus finding that the police use of Hutchinson to “intentionally create a situation likely to induce Ayers to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel” violated the Sixth Amendment.

Here is the problem with jail house snitches. Hutchinson, who was in custody for crimes of moral turpitude involving financial misconduct, gave three different stories on different occasions regarding what he had been told by Ayers. Therefore he is not very trustworthy and the use of his testimony at trial is questionable. Furthermore since the police could not questions Ayers without his attorney present without violating the Sixth Amendment, they should not be allowed to manipulate the situation by either hinting to Hutchinson that he find out the nature of the weapon and the money stolen or by asking him to find out the information.

The Supreme Court ruled that in order to assert Miranda rights an arrestee must verbally tell the officer that he/she does not want to talk to the officer or that he she wants to maintain silence.

Van Chester Thompkins was charged with murder in a Michigan Court. After his arrest in Ohio two Michigan police officers traveled to Ohio to interrogate him. They spent three hours questioning him but during most of that time he was silent. Towards the end of the interrogation the officers asked him if he prayed to god to forgive him for the murder. He said yes and the answer was used against him at trial after his motion to suppress the answer was denied.

On habeas the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Thompkins did not invoke his Miranda rights and that he waived the right by answering the officer’s question, a position rejected by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but accepted by the Supreme Court.

Justice Sotomeyer wrote the dissent. She pointed out that in the Supreme Court held that “If [an] individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent” or if he “states that he wants an attorney,” the interrogation “must cease.” It would seem that a two and three quarter hour silence would be an indication that Thompkins wanted to remain silent. In Miranda the Court wrote:

“Whatever the testimony of the authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waive his rights. In these circumstances the fact that the individual eventually made a statement is consistent with the conclusion that the compelling influence of the interrogation finally forced him to do so. It is inconsistent with any notion of a voluntary relinquishment of the privilege.”

As Sotomeyer points out this seems to be pretty much on point but it was ignored by the majority. As the Court stated in Miranda: “a valid waiver will not be presumed … simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.”

Perhaps the most ironic part of the decision is that arrestees must now verbally assert their desire to remain silent. The common Miranda right read to arrestees says that the arrestee has a right to ask for an attorney and the right to remain silent. It says nothing about stating that the arrestee must state that he/she wants to remain silent.

President Obama has authorized the capture or killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in new Mexico of Yemeni parents. Allegedly he is a recruiter for al-Qaeda.

He may be the first American citizen placed on the targeted killing list. Although I’m not sure what difference it makes whether he is an American citizen or not. We are supposed to be a nation of law. The proper thing to do is to indict him, perhaps on treason charges, and ask the Yemeni government to arrest him and extradite him. This is the legal thing to do.

At this point he is in hiding in Yemen and neither the Yemeni government or the American government know exactly where he is. Though there are all sorts of rumors about his conduct and participation in al-Qaeda, I suspect the government wants to kill him because it does not have enough solid evidence to indict him.

The government will probably justify the killing of al-Awlaki by asserting that international law permits the killing of individuals who pose an imminent threat to a country and also it will point out that we are at war with al-Qaeda. But even if he poses an imminent threat and even if his killing would be permissible under international law it does not mean that we should kill him. We like to think of ourselves as a humane example to the rest of the world–as a nation that believes in the rule of law. Even if it is permissible under international law, it may not be permissible under out Constitution. Both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require due process of law. The Fifth Amendment states in pertinent part:

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 . . .

His killing may be justified under the Fifth Amendment as being in time of war. It would appear to me, however, that the Fifth Amendment allows for the killing of members of the military by court marshal without an indictment during war but not of US citizens who are not members of the military. But the sad fact is that the Courts will never get a chance to decide whether the killing is legal or not because he will not be indicted and charged.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search of three residences in a Kansas City methamphetamine case in United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Mark King set up surveillance at 323 South Brighton Avenue. Along with other agents he decided to conduct a “knock and talk.” A “knock and talk” is used by narcotics agents when they want to search a residence but they do not have probable cause to get a search warrant. They knock on the front door and when someone answers it they try to talk their way into the house and get consent from the residents to search the house. Of course the residents do not have to answer the door. Nor do they have to talk to the officers or give them permission to enter the house.

But King was either good or lucky. Justino Ruiz-Ramos answered the door. He said he did not live at the residence but Salvador Jesus Velasco-Saldana came to the door. Velasco-Saldana said he resided there and gave the officers permission to enter. He consented to the officers searching the residence. They found methamphetamine and related items. They interviewed Velasco-Saldana and he told them that Gerardo sold him three pounds of methamphetamine and that Gerardo’s brother delivered it. He drew the officers a map explaining how to get to Gerardo’s house.

Several officers including King and Luis Ortiz of the Kansas City Police Department Gang Unit went to 430 Donnelly Avenue and conducted another “knock and talk.” Miguel Angel Garcia-Bobadilla answered the door and again the officers were let in. They asked Garcia-Bobadilla if he was alone. When he answered yes they asked asked if they could perform a protective sweep in order to confirm that no one else was in the house. He gave permission. A protective sweep is done to make sure the officers are safe while in the house. But they also know that any illegal substances they see in “plain view” can be seized. They found a significant amount of methamphetamine in the house.

During the sweep they ran into Alfredo and Dehli Hernando-Pena. Alfredo and Garcia-Bobadilla said they lived in the house. Both gave verbal and written consent to the search. Dehli agreed to cooperate. She told them that Alfredo’s brothers lived at 3907 East 12th Terrace. After the officers search the Donnelly Avenue house they went to the 12th Terrace house. They knocked on the door and Gerardo answered. While talking to Gerardo they noticed Alphonso entering the kitchen with large baggies of powder and they heard what they thought to be Alphonso flushing something down the sink. The officers thinking that evidence was being destroyed entered the residence without a warrant.

After they were indicted the defendants brought motions to suppress the evidence. The court upheld all of the searches. As to the South Brighton Avenue search, it found that Velasco-Saldana gave consent to the entry and search. As a result it was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.While there was some question about the facts of the Donnelly Avenue search. The police claim that the residents gave their consent and the residents say the police forced their way in, the court found the officers to be credible and the residents not to be. As a result it found that the entry and search was also the result of consent. As to the 12th Terrace search there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment when exigent circumstances exist. The courts have found that the eminent destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance allowing the authorities to enter a residence without a warrant.

The question that constantly comes up in my mind is why would anyone allow the police to enter their house and search it knowing that there is a significant amount of methamphetamine in the house. If any of the defendants had just said “no” I will not talk with you or “no” you cannot come in, or “no” you cannot search none of this would have happened and they would not have be serving decades in prison. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments give people the absolute right not to talk to the police. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Amendments give people the right to refuse entry to any officer who does not have a search warrant into their residence and to deny the officers the right to search the residence.

Even assuming that the police do not always tell the truth it is obvious that the defendants talked themselves into being arrested. Did they think that when talking with experienced officer they could talk themselves out of being arrested–unlikely. And I do not know about this case but by talking they endanger themselves because others get arrested and they may be killed. It makes no sense.

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.

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.