United States v. Delarosa

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Gustavo A. DELAROSA, Aviation Ordnanceman Third Class
U.S. Navy, Appellant
No. 08-0390
Crim. App. No. 200602335
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued February 3, 2009
Decided May 6, 2009
EFFRON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
BAKER, STUCKY, and RYAN, JJ., joined. ERDMANN, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian D. Korn, JAGC, USN (argued);
Major Richard D. Belliss, USMC.
For Appellee: Major Elizabeth A. Harvey, USMC (argued); Brian
K. Keller, Esq. (on brief); Lieutenant Derek D. Butler, JAGC,
USN.
Amicus Curiae: Preston Jones (law student) (argued); Brook A.
Busbee, Esq. (supervising attorney) (on brief); Mike McCollum,
Esq. (supervising attorney); for the Southern Methodist
University, Dedman School of Law.
Military Judge: Daniel E. O’Toole
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
Chief Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court.
A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted
members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of
aggravated assault on his infant son, in violation of Article
128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 928
(2000). The sentence adjudged by the court-martial and approved
by the convening authority included a bad-conduct discharge,
confinement for three months, forfeiture of all pay and
allowances, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. United
States v. Delarosa, No. NMCCA 200602335, 2008 CCA LEXIS 4, at
*20, 2008 WL 142115, at *7 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 10, 2008)
(unpublished).
The present appeal concerns the ruling of the military
judge denying Appellant’s motion to suppress his confession to
local civilian law enforcement officers.1 For the reasons set
1
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following
issue:
WHETHER (1) THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
ADOPTING A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER
APPELLANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT WAS SCRUPULOUSLY HONORED THAT DIFFERS
FROM THE TESTS SET FORTH BY THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY,
423 U.S. 96 (1975) AND UNITED STATES v.
WATKINS, 34 M.J. 344 (C.M.A. 1992); AND (2)
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE CORRECTLY DENIED THE
DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT’S
2
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
forth below, we agree that the military judge properly denied
the suppression motion, and we affirm Appellant’s conviction.2
I. BACKGROUND
A. SELF-INCRIMINATION RIGHTS WARNINGS
FOR PERSONS IN CUSTODY
Prior to initiating interrogation, law enforcement
officials must provide rights warnings to a person in custody.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 445 (1966); United States
v. Tempia, 16 C.M.A 629, 637, 37 C.M.R. 249, 257 (1967); U.S.
Const. amend V. Military officials and civilians acting on
their behalf are required to provide rights warnings prior to
interrogating a member of the armed forces if that servicemember
is a suspect, irrespective of custody. Article 31(b), UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. 831(b) (2000); Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.)
305(b)(1), 305(c). The present appeal involves only the former
requirement -- rights warnings under Miranda for persons in
custody.
When Miranda warnings are required, the person must be
CONFESSION MADE TO THE DETECTIVES AT THE
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, POLICE DEPARTMENT.
2
Oral argument in this case was heard at the Dedman School of
Law, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, as part of
the Court’s “Project Outreach.” See United States v. Mahoney,
58 M.J. 346, 347 n.1 (C.A.A.F. 2003). This practice was
developed as part of a public awareness program to demonstrate
the operation of a federal court of appeals and the military
justice system.
3
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
advised of the right to remain silent, that any statement made
by the person can be used against that person in a court of law,
that the person has the right to consult with counsel and have
counsel present during questioning, and that counsel will be
appointed if the person cannot afford a lawyer. 348 U.S. at
444. If a suspect provides an ambiguous statement regarding
invocation of rights after Miranda warnings have been given, law
enforcement officials are not obligated to cease interrogation.
See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1994); Medina
v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1101 (11th Cir. 1995); cf. United
States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1152 (11th Cir. 2004) (applying
Davis when the appellant told the police that he would make a
statement but refused to sign a rights waiver form). If a
suspect’s statement is ambiguous, law enforcement officials may
attempt to clarify the issue of rights invocation, but they are
not required to do so. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461 (noting that
although “it will often be good police practice for the
interviewing officers to clarify” an ambiguous response, the
Supreme Court “decline[d] to adopt a rule requiring officers to
ask clarifying questions”). See, e.g., United States v. Brown,
287 F.3d 965, 972-73 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Davis to
ambiguous initial waiver); United States v. Muhammad, 120 F.3d
688, 698 (7th Cir. 1997) (same). But see United States v.
Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2008) (viewing Davis
4
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
as applicable only in a post-waiver context, and requiring an
“interrogating officer to clarify any ambiguity before beginning
general interrogation”). They may continue questioning unless
the suspect unambiguously invokes his rights, regardless of
whether law enforcement officials have endeavored to clarify any
ambiguity. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461-62.
If the suspect unambiguously invokes his or her rights
under Miranda, law enforcement officials may not conduct any
further questioning of the suspect about the offense unless they
do so in a manner demonstrating that they have “scrupulously
honored” the suspect’s invocation of rights. Michigan v.
Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975); cf. Edwards v. Arizona, 451
U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981) (holding that a suspect who invokes the
right to counsel could not be subjected to further interrogation
until counsel has been made available to him, unless the suspect
himself reinitiated further communication with the police).
In the present appeal, the parties do not dispute that
Appellant received the appropriate warnings under Miranda. In
that context, the issues on appeal concern whether Appellant
unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights; and, if so, whether
the law enforcement officials scrupulously honored those rights
before conducting any further interrogation.
5
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
B. THE SUPPRESSION MOTION
1. Procedural setting
Appellant lived in an off-base apartment in Norfolk,
Virginia, with his wife and five-month-old son. On the evening
of January 20, 2004, paramedics came to the apartment in
response to an emergency call from Appellant’s wife. They found
Appellant performing CPR on his son, who was unconscious and not
breathing. An ambulance brought the child to a civilian
hospital in a condition of full cardiac arrest. The initial
medical diagnosis indicated that the son was a victim of child
abuse in the form of shaken baby syndrome. Early in the morning
on January 21, the son was transferred to the pediatric
intensive care unit. On January 22, after doctors determined
that the condition was irreversible, the child was removed from
life support and was declared legally dead. Following an
autopsy conducted by civilian medical officials on January 23,
the Norfolk medical examiner issued a report describing the
cause of death as an acute head injury.
Later that day, civilian law enforcement officials in
Norfolk opened a homicide investigation, which was conducted
primarily by Detectives Bynum and Mayer of the Norfolk Police
Department. During the investigation, Appellant made the
incriminating statements at issue in the present appeal. See
infra Part I.B.2. Subsequently, Appellant was charged with
6
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
murder under state law, and the case was referred for trial
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the City of
Norfolk, Criminal Division. At a preliminary hearing, the
presiding judge suppressed Appellant’s incriminating statements
on the ground that the officers did not “scrupulously guard[]”
his Miranda rights by putting Appellant in “the position of
having to justify the exercise of a constitutional right.” The
judge then dismissed the charge based on insufficiency of the
remaining evidence.
Military officials instituted separate proceedings under
the UCMJ the following year, leading to the court-martial that
is the subject of the present appeal. We note that the
constitutional and statutory limitations on former jeopardy are
not at issue when, as in the present case, charges are pursued
in a federal proceeding -- a court-martial -- after dismissal in
state court. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Article 44, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. § 844; Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89 (1985) (holding
that the federal and state governments, for purposes of former
jeopardy, are treated as separate sovereigns, in which criminal
proceedings by one sovereign do not preclude proceedings by the
other).
At the court-martial, the prosecution sought a preliminary
ruling on the admissibility of Appellant’s confession, and the
defense responded with a motion to suppress. After the parties
7
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
presented extensive testimony and documentary evidence in a
preliminary session under Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §
839(a) (2000), the military judge denied Appellant’s motion to
suppress the confession. At the request of the defense, the
military judge reconsidered the matter but declined to change
his ruling. The military judge made detailed findings of fact
and conclusions of law regarding the actions of the civilian law
enforcement officials in obtaining incriminating statements from
Appellant. See infra Part I.B.2.
At trial, the prosecution included the incriminating
statements as part of its case-in-chief before the court-martial
panel. A panel of members convicted Appellant, and the Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed.
On appeal of a motion to suppress incriminating statements,
we “accept[] the military judge’s findings of historical fact
unless they are clearly erroneous,” and we review the military
judge’s conclusions of law de novo. See United States v.
Melanson, 53 M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2000). In the present appeal,
neither party challenges the military judge’s findings of fact,
but they disagree as to the conclusions of law. See infra Part
III. In that posture, we accept the military judge’s factual
findings as described in the following section.
2. Findings of fact by the military judge
The following summarizes the military judge’s findings of
8
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
fact pertinent to the present appeal.
a. Appellant’s appearance at the police station
Detective Bynum of the Norfolk Police Department contacted
Appellant on the afternoon of January 23, 2004 -- the day after
his son died -- and asked him to come to the Police Operations
Center to identify his son’s body. That afternoon, Appellant
drove to the Police Operations Center in his own vehicle.
Detective Bynum met Appellant in the reception area at about
3:00 p.m. and escorted him through two sets of locked doors into
an interview room. Appellant was not placed in handcuffs, nor
was he told he was under arrest.
b. Appellant’s stated interest in discussing the incident
with the detectives
The detectives and Appellant engaged in about forty minutes
of general conversation before Appellant was presented with the
body identification form. During this time, Appellant was
responsive and cooperative. Appellant told the detectives that
the medical examiner’s office had informed him that the death
had been determined to be a homicide. Appellant indicated
several times that he wanted to discuss his son’s death with the
detectives. He told the detectives that he wanted to “tell you
what you want to know.” The detectives, however, advised
Appellant that they would not talk about the homicide until they
completed the body identification form and advised Appellant of
9
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
his rights. Shortly thereafter, Appellant signed the body
identification form.
c. The rights advisement
At about 3:50 p.m., Detective Bynum advised Appellant of
his Miranda rights using the Norfolk Police Department Legal
Rights Advice Form. The form consisted of seven items with
blank space after each item for Appellant’s response. The first
four items set forth the Miranda rights, with each item
containing a question asking whether Appellant understood the
applicable right. The fifth item contained a summary statement
regarding Appellant’s understanding of the rights warnings. The
sixth item provided an opportunity to waive the rights, and the
last item addressed the issue of voluntariness.
Detective Bynum employed a sequential procedure in
connection with the form. First, he read each item. Then, he
asked Appellant to read the item aloud and explain what it meant
in Appellant’s own words. Finally, he asked Appellant to write
his response on the form.
d. Appellant’s response to the rights advisement
The first item on the form concerned the right to remain
silent. Detective Bynum read the item. Then Appellant read it,
explained it, and wrote “YES,” indicating that he understood the
right.
As Detective Bynum attempted to employ the same procedure
10
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
on the remaining items, Appellant repeatedly interrupted him.
During these interruptions, Appellant stated a number of times
that he wanted to talk to the detectives. Detective Bynum
attempted to slow down the process and complete the form in the
usual manner.
Appellant indicated that he understood the rights described
on the form by writing “YES” after each of the first five items.
However, after the sixth item –- “I further state that I waive
these rights and desire to make a statement” -- Appellant wrote
“NO” as his response. After the seventh item -- “This statement
is completely free and voluntary on my part without any threat
or promise from anyone” -- Appellant wrote “N/A” as his
response.
At that point, Detective Bynum did not know whether
Appellant had misunderstood the sixth item or whether Appellant
wished to invoke the right to remain silent. Both detectives
were surprised and confused by Appellant’s answer. Attempting
to clarify the matter, Detective Bynum asked Appellant, “‘Why
did you say “NO”?’” Appellant responded that he wanted to talk
to the detectives, but that he also wanted a command
representative present. Detective Bynum responded that the
standard policy of the Norfolk Police Department did not allow
anyone to be present during questioning other than the subject,
but he noted that Appellant had the right to counsel and pointed
11
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
out the third item on the rights advisement form. Appellant did
not request counsel, but repeated his request for the presence
of a command representative.
Detective Bynum reiterated that the department’s policy
would not permit the presence of a command representative. He
then told Appellant that the detectives would leave the room and
provide Appellant with additional time to review the rights
advisement form. Detective Bynum advised Appellant to knock on
the interrogation room door when he came to a decision.
As the detectives departed, Appellant offered a comment
about the incident under investigation, stating that his son was
alone with the babysitter for about two hours the day he was
rushed to the hospital. The detectives did not respond or
otherwise engage Appellant in substantive discussion about his
son’s death. They left the room and closed the door.
e. The waiver
At 4:25 p.m., approximately thirty-five minutes after the
detectives left the interview room, Detective Mayer returned and
asked if Appellant would be willing to take a polygraph
examination. When Appellant answered “Yes,” Detective Mayer
responded that he would make the arrangements.
Detective Mayer again checked in with Appellant at 6:35
p.m., asking whether Appellant needed anything. When Appellant
asked to use the restroom, Mayer escorted him through two
12
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
secured doors to the restroom area. Mayer waited outside while
Appellant used the restroom.
Upon exiting the restroom, Appellant asked Detective Mayer
if he could make a telephone call. Mayer responded that
Appellant could do so but that he would have to wait a while
because Mayer was in the middle of something else. In response
to Appellant’s inquiry as to what the detective was doing, Mayer
stated that Appellant’s wife was in an interview room preparing
for a polygraph test. Mayer stated that he would arrange for
Appellant to use the telephone as soon as he was done with
Appellant’s wife.
After learning that his wife was undergoing a polygraph
examination, Appellant indicated that he wanted to speak with
the detectives about his son’s death. Detective Mayer responded
that the detectives could not speak with Appellant because he
had written “NO” on the rights advisement form. Appellant
stated that he had been confused about the rights form and that
he now wanted to waive his rights and take a polygraph
examination. Mayer told Appellant that he and Detective Bynum
would have to advise Appellant of his rights using a new rights
advisement form before being able to speak with Appellant.
Mayer added that the detectives would return to Appellant’s
interview room as soon as Appellant’s wife finished her
polygraph examination.
13
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
At 6:56 p.m., Detective Bynum and Detective Mayer reentered
Appellant’s interview room. They advised Appellant of his
Miranda rights using a second rights advisement form. This
time, Appellant wrote “YES” next to each item on the form,
including the item indicating that Appellant agreed to waive his
rights and make a statement to the police.
At 8:00 p.m., Appellant participated in a polygraph
examination administered by a third detective, Detective Crank.
Before answering substantive questions, Appellant read and
signed a third rights advisement form in which he again waived
his rights. Appellant also responded verbally that he
understood his rights and that he consented to take the
polygraph examination as a matter of his own free will. During
the pre-polygraph interview, Appellant continued to deny any
involvement in his son’s death.
f. Appellant’s incriminating statements
During the post-polygraph interview, Appellant broke down
crying after Detective Crank acknowledged that Appellant loved
his son. Appellant proceeded to make several incriminating
verbal responses to both leading and open-ended questions posed
by Detective Crank.
Appellant returned to the interview room at 9:28 p.m. In
response to questioning from Detective Mayer and Detective Bynum
during a tape-recorded session, Appellant made additional and
14
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
more detailed incriminating statements. The tape-recorded
statements were transcribed, and Appellant signed a typed
statement at 11:58 p.m.
The incriminating statements included admissions that, on
the night his son was rushed to the hospital in cardiac arrest,
Appellant had shaken his son after becoming frustrated when his
son refused to stop crying and go to sleep. Appellant also
admitted to shaking his son again a few hours later as Appellant
tried to wake him up to feed him.
g. The military judge’s additional findings of fact
After the military judge issued his initial findings of
fact and denied the motion to suppress, the defense asked the
military judge to reconsider the matter and permit the accused
to testify on the suppression motion. See M.R.E. 304(f). The
military judge granted the motion, and Appellant testified that
he asked for a lawyer and intended to invoke his Miranda rights
during the first rights advisement. Appellant also testified
that, during the time Detective Mayer was escorting Appellant to
the restroom, Mayer pressured Appellant into waiving his rights
and Appellant felt he did not have a choice but to agree.
The military judge issued additional findings of fact in
which he found that Appellant’s testimony on the suppression
issue was not credible. The military judge concluded that
Appellant’s testimony did not require revision of the previously
15
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
adjudicated findings of fact. We note that the parties have not
challenged the military judge’s findings of fact as clearly
erroneous, see supra Part B.1., and we have not identified a
basis for concluding that the findings were clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we assess the issues of law based upon the military
judge’s findings of fact.
II. DISCUSSION
At the outset, we consider whether Appellant unambiguously
invoked his Miranda rights. If Appellant made an unambiguous
invocation of his rights, law enforcement officials were
obligated to scrupulously honor his invocation before engaging
in any further discussion regarding waiver. See Davis, 512 U.S.
at 459, 461-62. If, however, Appellant did not unambiguously
invoke his rights, law enforcement officials had “no obligation
to stop questioning him.” Id. at 462. If Appellant did not
unambiguously invoke his rights, permissible questioning could
include clarification of ambiguities. As the Supreme Court has
stated, “it will often be good police practice for the
interviewing officers to clarify” an ambiguous response. Id. at
461 (noting that the Court “decline[d] to adopt a rule requiring
officers to ask clarifying questions”). See supra Part I.A.
A. INVOCATION AND WAIVER
In assessing whether a person provided an unambiguous
16
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
invocation of Miranda rights, the Supreme Court has stated that
the invocation must be “sufficiently clear[] that a reasonable
police officer in the circumstances would understand the
statement to be a request for an attorney” or to remain silent.
Davis, 512 U.S. at 459. The Supreme Court has addressed without
resolving the question of whether an invocation “may be
characterized as ambiguous or equivocal as a result of events
preceding the request or of nuances inherent in the request
itself.” Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 99-100 (1984). The
courts of appeals have considered events immediately preceding,
as well as concurrent with, the invocation in the course of
addressing the issue of ambiguity. See United States v. Abela,
380 F.3d 915, 926 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding it appropriate for a
reviewing court to look to the surrounding circumstances to
evaluate the clarity of a suspect’s request for counsel);
Acosta, 363 F.3d at 1154-55 (holding that the appellant’s rights
invocation was ambiguous after considering that the appellant
stated that he was willing to speak to the police while also
stating that he would not waive his rights); Bui v. DiPaolo, 170
F.3d 232, 241 (1st Cir. 1999) (holding that the appellant’s
invocation was ambiguous when the statement that he did not want
to talk about the reasons for his arrest was preceded by and
concurrent with a back-and-forth exchange with the police);
Medina, 59 F.3d at 1101; cf. Rodriguez, 518 F.3d at 1077
17
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
(holding that the appellant’s phrase “I’m good for tonight”
constituted an ambiguous invocation of his right to silence
after examining the nuances of the language).
The Court of Criminal Appeals treated Appellant’s insertion
of the word “NO” next to the rights-waiver question on the form
as an ambiguous invocation of rights in the context of the
surrounding events. The court then stated: “[O]nce the
appellant made clear that his willingness to make a statement
was contingent on having a command representative present, the
ambiguity [surrounding his invocation of rights] was resolved.”
Delarosa, 2008 CCA LEXIS 4, at *12, 2008 WL 142115, at *4. The
court next engaged in a detailed examination of whether the
further actions by the detectives “scrupulously honored”
Appellant’s invocation of rights under Mosely, 423 U.S. 96. The
court concluded that the detectives complied with Mosely, and
held that Appellant’s incriminating statements were admissible.
Delarosa, 2008 CCA LEXIS 4 at *12-*19, 2008 WL 142115, at *4-*7.
To the extent that the court below concluded that Appellant
unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, we disagree. The
interaction between Appellant and the detectives during the
period from the initial rights advisement through Appellant’s
decision to waive his Miranda rights -- as reflected in the
findings of fact by the military judge -- underscores the
ambiguous nature of Appellant’s pre-waiver responses. See supra
18
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
Part II.B.2.
Immediately before the initial rights advisement, Appellant
indicated several times that he wanted to discuss his son’s
death with the detectives. Likewise, in the midst of the rights
advisement, Appellant repeatedly interrupted Detective Bynum,
stating a number of times that he wanted to talk to the
detectives. In light of Appellant’s repeated statements
reflecting an intent to cooperate, Appellant’s “NO” response on
the rights advisement form was ambiguous.
Immediately after Appellant wrote “NO” in response to the
question of whether he would waive his rights, Detective Bynum
attempted to clarify Appellant’s response. Appellant said he
would talk to the detectives with a command representative
present, a request that the detectives declined to grant. When
the detectives said that they would leave the room to give him
additional time to consider the issue of waiver, Appellant
highlighted the ambiguity of his request for a command
representative by initiating a conversation containing a
potentially exculpatory comment about babysitting arrangements
for his son on the date of the injury. Under these
circumstances, the detectives reasonably treated Appellant’s
responses as ambiguous.3
3
We note that Appellant later stated that he had written “NO” on
the first form because he was confused about the form and he now
19
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
Throughout the process, the detectives continued to pursue
clarification of his intent until they obtained an affirmative
waiver of his Miranda rights. See Davis, 512 U.S. at 461-62.
Considering the circumstances prior to and during Appellant’s
writing “NO” on the rights advisement form, it was reasonable
for the detectives to view Appellant’s actions as a whole as
ambiguous with respect to invocation of the right to remain
silent. See Medina, 59 F.3d at 1104-05 (declining to adopt a
per se rule that a suspect’s response of “No” when asked if he
wants to talk to a police officer means the officer cannot go
forward with questioning). Likewise, when Appellant initiated a
conversation containing a potentially exculpatory comment
immediately after requesting the presence of a command
representative, the detectives reasonably treated his actions as
ambiguous with respect to invocation of the right to remain
silent. Under these circumstances, the detectives were not
required to cease questioning Appellant, and they were likewise
free to resume questioning at any time. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461-
62; Medina, 59 F.3d at 1105.
wanted to waive his rights. Although Appellant’s subsequent
statements form no part of our analysis on the issue of
ambiguity, see Smith, 469 U.S. at 100, we note that Appellant’s
subsequent statements confirm our conclusion that Appellant’s
responses were ambiguous.
20
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
B. VOLUNTARINESS
Although Appellant focuses primarily on the issue of
waiver, he also offers a brief challenge to the voluntariness of
his admissions. See M.R.E. 304(c)(3). After reviewing the
totality of the circumstances, we also find that Appellant’s
confession was “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”
given. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Appellant was advised of
his Fifth Amendment rights from a standardized legal rights
advisement form on three separate occasions during the course of
his interrogation. Although Appellant was provided with
repeated opportunities to invoke his Miranda rights, he never
unambiguously invoked his right to counsel or his right to
remain silent. The atmosphere of the interrogation was not
laced with coercion or intimidation. The military judge
reviewed the videotapes of the pre-polygraph and post-polygraph
interviews and found that the detective’s tone was never
verbally abusive or threatening. Appellant acknowledged that no
one had threatened him into making a statement and that it was a
product of his own free will. The military judge did not err in
denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the confession.
III. DECISION
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
21
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
ERDMANN, Judge (dissenting):
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that
Delarosa ambiguously asserted his right to remain silent. I
further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case,
Delarosa’s assertion of his right to remain silent was not
scrupulously honored. Therefore, I dissent.
The initial difference between my position and the
majority’s centers on whether Delarosa unambiguously invoked his
right to remain silent. I agree with the United States Navy-
Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion on this
question: “[O]nce [Delarosa] made clear that his willingness to
make a statement was contingent on having a command
representative present, the ambiguity was resolved.” United
States v. Delarosa, No. NMCCA 200602335, 2008 CCA LEXIS 4, at
*12, 2008 WL 142115, at *4 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 10, 2008)
(unpublished). This conclusion of law reflects appropriate
consideration of the findings of fact, which are not clearly
erroneous, and is rationally derived from all the circumstances.
There is no reason to depart from that conclusion and find
ambiguity where none exists.
Delarosa’s written response as to whether he would waive
his rights and make a statement was clear enough on its face.1
1
It could be reasonably argued that Delarosa clearly and
unambiguously asserted his right to remain silent when, after
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
However, granting that Delarosa’s prior conduct may have
indicated a willingness to talk and perhaps created some
uncertainty about the meaning of his invocation, the detectives
immediately clarified any apparent confusion. Upon determining
that Delarosa would not waive his right to remain silent unless
a command representative was present, and since police policy
would not allow that presence, the detectives had the necessary
clarification and Delarosa’s invocation was unambiguous.
Once the uncertainty about Delarosa’s apparent change of
heart was resolved, any law enforcement actions designed or
reasonably likely to overcome Delarosa’s resolve to remain
silent were impermissible: “If the individual indicates in any
manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he
wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this
being advised of his rights and indicating an understanding of
them, Delarosa wrote “NO” in response to a written question
asking whether he wished to waive his rights and make a
statement. See United States v. Rambo, 365 F.3d 906, 910 (10th
Cir. 2004) (“There is no nuance nor context to vary the
unequivocal meaning of Rambo’s single word, monosyllabic
response. His response, ‘No,’ could only mean an invocation of
the right to remain silent.”). The clarity of this invocation
is enhanced by the fact that Delarosa wrote “N/A” in the next
blank on the rights warning form which called for an affirmation
of the voluntariness of any statement. After a rights warning,
an informed decision to remain silent arguably vitiates any
previous, uninformed reflections of willingness to talk, and
even asking the suspect “why” could be viewed as a failure to
scrupulously honor that informed invocation of the right to
remain silent. But see Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1105
(11th Cir. 1995).
2
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth
Amendment privilege.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74
(1966).
If a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would
understand that statement to be an invocation of the right to
remain silent, then that invocation is not ambiguous. Burket v.
Angelone, 208 F.3d 172, 200 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing United
States v. Davis, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994)). Here, the
detectives themselves recognized that Delarosa invoked his right
to remain silent. Detective Mayer testified that “[Delarosa]
had put ‘No’ to question number 6, so we couldn’t talk to him.”
Similarly, when Delarosa learned his wife was taking a polygraph
exam and indicated he wished to make a statement, “Detective
Mayer responded that since the accused wrote ‘NO’ on the rights
waiver form they would have to re-advise him of his rights.”
These statements reflect that Detective Mayer understood that
Delarosa had unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.
Under these circumstances I agree with the police officer at the
scene and the lower court that Delarosa unambiguously invoked
his right to remain silent when he indicated he was unwilling to
talk without a command representative present.
The invocation of the right to remain silent does not,
however, impose a permanent bar against further questioning.
Weeks v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 249, 267 (4th Cir. 1999), and
3
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
Vujosevic v. Rafferty, 844 F.2d 1023, 1028 (3d Cir. 1988) (both
citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102-03 (1975)). The
admissibility of any subsequent statements depends upon an
analysis as to whether the law enforcement officials involved
“scrupulously honored” the invocation of the right to remain
silent. Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103-04. “[T]he touchstone is
whether a ‘review of the circumstances’ leading up to the
suspect’s confession reveals that his ‘right to cut off
questioning was fully respected.’” Weeks, 176 F.3d at 268
(quoting Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104).
From the outset, the Norfolk police detectives seemed
determined to get Delarosa to speak. They admittedly used a
ruse to get Delarosa to the police station and “Detective Bynum
admitted that he would have done anything he legally could have
done to keep the accused at the [Police Operations Center], if
he had asked to leave.” At no point did the detectives inform
Delarosa that he was free to go. Rather, they expressed an
intention to keep Delarosa at the police station and they
succeeded in doing just that despite lacking probable cause to
arrest Delarosa.
After Delarosa invoked his right to remain silent, the
detectives did not cease their efforts to get Delarosa to talk.
Detective Bynum immediately asked Delarosa, “‘Why did you say
“No”?’” Delarosa explained that he wanted a representative from
4
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
his command present. As the detectives left the interrogation
room, Bynum told Delarosa to “consider” his decision, which
under the circumstances could only mean to “reconsider,” and to
knock on the door when he decided what he wanted to do. The
door in question was the exit to a small, spartan interrogation
room where Delarosa sat isolated. A reasonable man, having been
informed of his custodial interrogation rights and then told to
knock on the only available exit after reconsidering his
previous election to remain silent would conclude he was not
free to leave unless he changed his mind.
Nonetheless, the detectives did not wait for Delarosa to
make up his own mind. After about thirty-five minutes Detective
Mayer opened the door and asked if Delarosa was willing to take
a polygraph exam. Although such a question in and of itself may
not be an interrogation, see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S.
291, 308 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting), the question imparts
a desire to have the suspect talk about the matter under
investigation. Having kept Delarosa isolated after he invoked
his right to remain silent and with no change in circumstance,
Norfolk detectives directly asked Delarosa to make a statement
via a polygraph exam without any reference to his rights or his
prior invocation of the right to remain silent. While this
tactic certainly did not scrupulously honor Delarosa’s
invocation of the right to remain silent, it was effective.
5
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
Delarosa abandoned his resolve to remain silent and agreed to
take a polygraph exam, but was again left alone in the
interrogation room while the detectives picked up his wife for
questioning.
For approximately the next two hours, Delarosa remained
isolated in the interrogation room. Detective Mayer then asked
if Delarosa needed anything and Delarosa indicated he wished to
use the bathroom. Mayer escorted Delarosa to the bathroom and
remained outside while Delarosa was in the bathroom. After he
exited the bathroom, Delarosa asked to use the telephone and
Mayer responded that it would be a while because Mayer was busy.
When Delarosa asked what was going on, Mayer responded that
Delarosa’s wife was in an interview room preparing for a
polygraph exam and that Delarosa could use the phone after the
polygraph exam was complete. Delarosa expressed some surprise
that his wife was at the police station and asked to talk to
with her. He was told that he could not see her until after her
polygraph exam. At this point Delarosa, who had already
abandoned his resolve to remain silent when he agreed to a
polygraph exam, again indicated that he wanted to talk to the
detectives. Mayer responded that he would have to re-advise
Delarosa of his rights.
The circumstances of Delarosa’s case stand in contrast to
those of Mosley and United States v. Watkins, 34 M.J. 3446
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
(C.M.A. 1992), where officers were found to have honored a
suspect’s invocation of rights. In Mosley the Supreme Court
found it significant that: (1) after Mosley invoked his right
to remain silent, officers ceased questioning right away; (2) a
significant period of time elapsed before questioning resumed;
(3) the officers informed Mosley of his rights a second time;
and (4) the later questioning was about a distinctly different
offense. 423 U.S. at 106-07. In Watkins this court found the
following factors significant with respect to whether Watkins’
invocation of the right to remain silent had been honored: (1)
agents gathered additional evidence and sought to interview
Watkins two and one-half hours after he initially invoked his
right to remain silent; (2) Watkins was reminded of the earlier
rights warning; (3) the second interview was at Watkins’
quarters and not in the “coercive environment arising from being
in custody at the police station”; and (4) after Watkins
requested counsel the interview stopped, but Watkins himself
initiated further conversation. 34 M.J. at 347.
Contrast Mosley and Watkins with the manner in which the
Norfolk police treated Delarosa’s invocation of the right to
remain silent. When Delarosa invoked his right, he was first
questioned as to why he was invoking it. Once it was clarified
that he was invoking his right to remain silent, he was told to
“consider what he would like to do.” Delarosa was kept in an
7
United States v. Delarosa, No. 08-0390/NA
eight-by-twelve-foot interrogation room at the police station
despite the absence of probable cause to arrest him and was told
to knock on the door only after he had considered his decision
to remain silent. Thirty-five minutes later the same officers
in the same location once again approached Delarosa and asked if
he would take a polygraph exam with no mention of his rights or
his prior invocation of the right to remain silent. Although
Delarosa agreed to take a polygraph exam at that time, he was
left in isolation for another two hours. After discovering that
the police were preparing to administer a polygraph exam to his
wife, Delarosa once again abandoned his resolve and informed the
detectives that he wanted to waive his rights and talk with
them.
These circumstances eroded any resolve Delarosa had to
remain silent and that erosion was the product of the conduct of
the Norfolk detectives. I therefore conclude that Delarosa
unambiguously invoked his constitutional right to remain silent
and that the Norfolk detectives did not scrupulously honor that
invocation. Delarosa’s ultimate waiver of the right to remain
silent and his written confession were not the product of a free
and voluntary election. I would reverse the decision of the
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, set
aside the findings and sentence, and authorize a rehearing.
8