United States v. Bellucci

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SANTINO BELLUCCI, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:23-CR-083

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 20, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Defendant Santino Bellucci's Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements (Doc. 108) is pending before the Court. With the Motion, Defendant Bellucci requests that the Court suppress incriminating statements he made to law enforcement following his arrest on February 28, 2023. (See, e.g., Doc 111 at 6-7.) Upon completion of the initial briefing of the Motion (Docs. 108, 111, 120, 127), the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 13, 2024. (Doc. 129.) At the outset of the evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that the resolution of whether the incriminating statements should be suppressed hinged on whether Bellucci was Mirandized before he made initial statements to law enforcement and that this determination was a matter of credibility since Bellucci contends he was not read his Miranda rights before he made incriminating statements and law enforcement on the scene say the opposite. (Evidentiary Hearing Transcript (“Hr'g Tr.”) 4:1-6, Doc 154 at 4.)

The parties have now filed their post-hearing briefs. (Docs 155,156.) Bellucci asserts that the Government has not satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he “was actually Mirandized in a police vehicle after being arrested” because the officers who testified at the hearing were not credible and the testimony and video related to an initial Miranda warning is not sufficiently compelling. (Doc. 155 at 1-6.) The Government responds that trial testimony and language contained in the audio and video recording of Bellucci's post-Miranda interview show that Bellucci was Mirandized before he made incriminating statements. (Doc. 156 at 2-6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements (Doc. 108) will be denied.

II. Background

The September 19, 2023, Superseding Indictment charges Santino Bellucci and Christopher Potter with Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances Resulting in Death and Distribution of a Controlled Substance Resulting in Death. (Doc. 89 at 1-3.) The Superseding Indictment also charges Defendant Potter with Distribution of a Controlled Substance, Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substance and Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises (id. at 4-5), and Defendant Bellucci with Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances (id. at 6).^[1]

The initial event giving rise to the crimes charged occurred on December 19,2022, when Corey Rinaldi, a twenty-six-year-old male, was found deceased in his bed in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 112 at 2; Doc. 119 at 3.) Autopsy and toxicology reports indicated that Corey Rinaldi died of a fentanyl overdose. (See, e.g., Doc. 120 at 3.) The police investigation that followed determined that a drug conspiracy involving Kaylee Ann Widmer, Santino Bellucci, and Christopher Richard Potter was the source of the fentanyl sold by Bellucci to Corey Rinaldi on December 18,2022 which resulted in his death. (Id.)

After further investigation, law enforcement obtained an arrest warrant for Defendant Bellucci on February 28, 2023. (Doc. 111 at 1.) On the same date, Bellucci was stopped by members of the Pennsylvania State Police and arrested. (Id. at 2.) Following his arrest, Bellucci was placed in a police vehicle and asked questions about Corey Rinaldi's death. (Id.) Bellucci made incriminating statements at the time, including an admission that he supplied narcotics to Corey Rinaldi near the time of his death. (Id.)

Following the investigation, Bellucci was transported to the Lackawanna County District Attorney's office where a recorded interview took place. (Id.) During the interview, Bellucci admitted to the same conduct he had admitted in the vehicle and expanded upon his earlier statement. (Id.)

Santino Bellucci and three law enforcement officers who took part in the arrest testified at the evidentiary hearing. Detective Michael Lydon, Detective Corey Condrad and Task Force Officer Christopher Shelly testified about Bellucci's arrest and whether he was Mirandized before he made incriminating statements.^[2] The three officers testified that Bellucci was Mirandized in the backseat of the police vehicle where he was placed after his his arrest. (See, e.g., Hr'g Tr. 13:19-14:5, 45:2-24, 63:3-21.) Bellucci testified that, while he was in the backseat of the car, he was told only that he did not have to speak with law enforcement if he did not want to, he was not advised about his right to an attorney, and he was not advised that he could stop the interview at any time. (Hr'g Tr. 77:24-78:15.)

During his testimony, Detective Lydon provided background of the lead up to the arrest and his involvement at the scene which began after Bellucci had been taken out of his car and handcuffed by members of the state police. (Hr'g Tr. 5:19-10:10.) Lydon testified that he provided Bellucci with initial information about his arrest and walked with him back to Detective Zech's vehicle. (Hr'g Tr. 10:14-11:20.) When asked “What happened next?" by the Government's attorney (Hr'g Tr. 12:5), Lydon stated

[o]n the way back to the car, Mr. Bellucci asked me what this was about. I told him that I would explain more once we got inside the vehicle, and he --1 gave him his Miranda warnings. He was placed in the back, the rear driver's side of that vehicle. I got into the back seat, sat directly next to Mr. Bellucci.

(Hr'g Tr. 12:6-11.) Lydon then provided additional details: once in the car he gave Bellucci copies of the arrest warrant and search warrant for his phone; Detective Condrad was sitting in the front passenger seat at the time; soon thereafter Detective Shelly got into the vehicle next to Lydon; and Lydon gave Bellucci his Miranda warnings. (Hr'g Tr. 12:2113:22.) When asked to provide details about the Miranda warnings, Lydon responded,

[s]o, we're in the back seat of the vehicle. It's always common that the first thing that I do before I ask anybody any questions that has to do anything with any criminal investigation, and that's, read them their Miranda warnings. I wanted to talk with Mr. Bellucci. I wanted to talk to Mr. Bellucci about the investigation, so I read him Miranda before asking him any questions.

(Hr'g Tr. 13:24-14:5.) Lydon testified that there was no impediment to Bellucci's hearing the rights Lydon had read, Bellucci confirmed that he understood the rights, and Bellucci told Lydon that he wanted to cooperate before Lydon began asking questions. (Hr'g Tr. 15:14:816:17.)

Regarding the later interview at the District Attorney's office, Lydon testified that he and Detective Shelly took Bellucci into an interview room, sat down with Bellucci and “kind of just had a little bit of rapport back and forth, and then I explained to him that I'm -I've already done it verbally, but I'm going to give you your Miranda again in a written form.” (Hr'g Tr. 18:3-9.) Lydon further testified that Bellucci had no reaction when Lydon said he had previously given the Miranda rights verbally and Bellucci remained cooperative during the entire interview. (Hr'g Tr. 18:12-16.) After a short video of the beginning of the interview at the District Attorney's office was played, Lydon was asked to reiterate what he told Bellucci at the outset of the interview and responded “I told him that I previously Mirandized him in the vehicle, but that I'm going to do it again.” (Hr'g Tr. 18:17-19:24.)

On cross-examination, Defendant's counsel asked Lydon whether he was having a conversation with Bellucci as he escorted him back to the vehicle, and Lydon responded “I wasn't asking him anything -- no, I think he asked me, What's going on? Or What am I under arrest for? I said, Let me get you back to the car and we'll talk.” (Hr'g Tr. 7-11.) Questioning about Miranda warnings followed:

Q. Okay. And a point of clarity because you talked about how you gave him Miranda warnings in the vehicle, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But when you were testifying on direct examination, you first said that you gave him his Miranda warnings prior to putting him in the vehicle. Do you recall that?

A. No.

Q. So if -- and the record will reflect what it reflects, but if you said that, that was incorrect?

A. No. He was given his Miranda warnings inside the vehicle.

(Hr'g Tr. 25:18-26:3.)

On redirect examination, Lydon confirmed that his incident report documented that Bellucci “was verbally provided Miranda in the back of that unmarked vehicle.” (Hr'g Tr. 35:22-36:7.) On recross, Defendant's counsel asked if Lydon "was not accurate or truthful” when he stated in the incident report that Detective Shelly and Detective John Munley were with him in the vehicle. (Hr'g Tr. 37:4-10.) Lydon responded that counsel was correct: “Detective Condrad and Detective Munley bear a striking resemblance, and that was my mistake.” (Hr'g Tr. 37:11-13.)

Detective Condrad testified that he got into the front passenger side of Zech's vehicle and heard Lydon give Bellucci the Miranda warnings. (Hr'g Tr. 44:24-45:5.) He also testified that, after Lydon read Bellucci the warnings, he specifically heard Lydon ask Bellucci if he understood the warnings and if Bellucci wanted to speak with him, and he heard Bellucci express his desire to cooperate. (Hr'g Tr. 45:14-24.) Condrad stated that he “believe[d] [Shelly] got into the front driver's seat” of the car and later confirmed this belief. (Hr'g Tr. 49:3-8.) On cross-examination, Defendant's counsel asked Condrad when he was first asked about Bellucci being Mirandized and Condrad responded “a couple of days” before the hearing. (Hr'g Tr. 50:12-20.) Condrad...