United States v. Green

569 F.Supp.3d 13

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Christopher GREEN, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 19-19 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed October 22, 2021

Michael Charles Liebman, U. S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, Nihar Ranjan Mohanty, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia Violent Crime and Narcotics Trafficking Section, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Jonathan Seth Zucker, Peter D. Wright, Law Offices of Jonathan Zucker, Washington, DC, David Walker Bos, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

Christopher Green is charged with participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. , conspiracy and engaging in an array of related, criminal acts. According to the superseding indictment, the "principal goal" of the RICO conspiracy "was to obtain as much money and things of value as possible through armed robberies and the trafficking of controlled substances, including PCP." Dkt. 12 at 2. Among other charges, the superseding indictment avers that Green participated in the armed-robbery-turned-murder of Zaan Scott on April 9, 2017, id. at 7–8, 9–10 (Counts Four, Five, and Ten), and the murder of Jan Cotto on April 6, 2017, id. at 6–7 (Counts Two and Three). The Scott murder allegedly occurred in the District of Columbia, and the Cotto murder allegedly occurred just across the border in Maryland. Id. at 5–6, 9–10.

After Green was arrested and charged under Maryland law with the Cotto murder, and while he was in pretrial custody in Prince George's County, Maryland, on that charge, two Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") detectives interviewed him regarding the Scott murder. Because those detectives did not apprise Green of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Court must determine whether Green was in "custody" for purposes of Miranda . According to the government, he was not in "custody" and thus Miranda does not foreclose admission of his statements at trial, Dkt. 22, while Green disagrees and requests that the Court suppress the statements, Dkt. 29.

All agree that Green was handcuffed to the wall during the interview, and, in any event, was not free to leave the Prince George's County detention facility, where he was held on charges relating to the Cotto murder. But under controlling Supreme Court precedent, that does not end the inquiry. Rather, for purposes of Miranda , " ‘custody’ is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion." Howes v. Fields , 565 U.S. 499, 508–09, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012). The Court must thus decide "whether, in light of ‘the objective circumstances of the interrogation,’ ... a ‘reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.’ " Id. at 509, 132 S.Ct. 1181 (brackets in original) (first quoting Stansbury v. California , 511 U.S. 318, 322–23, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (per curiam); and then quoting Thompson v. Keohane , 516 U.S. 99, 112, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) ).

Under the totality of the circumstances of Green's questioning—including the interrogating detective's repeated reminders that Green was free to cease answering questions and return to his cell at any time—the Court concludes that a reasonable person in Green's position would have felt free to terminate the interview and to return to his cell. And, for similar reasons, the Court is unpersuaded by Green's separate contention that his statements were involuntary. The Court, accordingly, will GRANT the government's motion to admit Green's statements and will DENY Green's motion to suppress.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Of the many allegations underlying the charges against Green, two are of particular relevance here. First, according to the government, Green shot and killed Jan Cotto in Capitol Heights, Maryland on April 6, 2017. Dkt. 20 at 1. Second, the government alleges that Green attempted to rob Zaan Scott outside of a convenience store in the District of Columbia on April 9, 2017. Dkt. 12 at 7–8; Dkt. 21 at 1–2. When Scott resisted, Green's alleged accomplice shot Scott. Dkt. 20 at 1–2; see also Dkt. 21 at 1. Scott "was immediately paralyzed from the waist down," and "[h]e died a little over a month later as result of the shooting." Dkt. 21 at 1.

Nearly two months’ later, on June 27, 2021, MPD detectives Brian Brador and Stephanie Garner visited the Prince George's County, Maryland detention facility where Green was detained on charges relating to Cotto's murder. Dkt. 22 at 1.¹ Although Cotto's murder and Scott's murder are now both part of this federal case, see Dkt. 12, at the time the two incidents were being investigated separately by the relevant local authorities. Brador and Garner, as MPD detectives, were there to question Green solely about Scott's murder in the District of Columbia. See Dkt. 55 at 8–10, 24. Because the Cotto murdered occurred in Maryland, Dkt. 20 at 1, that crime lay beyond their jurisdiction.

At Brador and Garner's request, Green was escorted to a "private secure room" at the Prince George's County detention facility. Id. at 9–10. The room measured nine feet by nine feet, according to Brador's estimate, and had no windows. Id. at 10. Brador and Garner sat on one side of a table, while Green sat opposite them. Id. Pursuant to the facility's policy for "contact visits"—that is, visits in which a detainee and visitors are not separated by a barrier, Dkt. 49-1 at 1 (Dixon Decl. ¶ 4)—one of Green's wrists was handcuffed to the wall for the duration of the interview, Dkt. 55 at 11.

Brador began the interview by "go[ing] over" a few "things" in light of the fact that Green was "locked up." He explained:

First of all, I know you're strapped to the ... wall right now[ ] and you're in a jail garment. For one, you know, we'd like to talk to you about what we're investigating. Okay? But of course, before that[,] you have to understand that this interview ... will be voluntary, okay. Whether you wanna talk to us or not, whether you want listen or not[,] [i]t is all up to you.

Even though you're handcuffed, you can end the interview at any time, you know....

Dkt. 22-2 at 3. Brador continued:

I just closed the door. That's ... for privacy in case anybody walks by again. So – because you're locked up for whatever other charge it is, we're not here to talk to you about that. We're not interested in that case. We're not here to jam you up on anything. We're not here to make your case better or worse. Okay. The only reason we're here is to talk about an investigation that we're conducting in D.C. All right.

Now, you're locked up right now. We can't change that. We can't set you free. We can't break you outta here. We can't do anything like that. So when I talk about the interview being voluntary, at any point you don't wanna talk to us[,] we can just knock on the door[,] and we can tell the guard you don't wanna talk to us[,] and he'll take you right back to wherever you were in a cell, or wherever you were. All right. It's all completely up to you.

If you wanna just hear us out for a moment and ... then talk or not talk, that's up to you also. So you're ... pretty much in complete control of this interview here, this conversation. Okay. I just wanted you to be aware of that. All right?

Id. at 4. Brador then asked Green whether he "wish[ed] to talk to us for a moment and listen to what we have to say?" Id.

In response, Green told that detectives that he wanted "like to hear what" they were "talking about" because he wanted "to figure out what[ ] [wa]s going on." Id. at 5. Brador then explained that he and Garner were investigating an armed robbery that occurred in April 2017; that "someone [was] shot" in the course of the robbery; and that the victim had been "able to identify people ... who were involved." Id. at 5–6. The detectives wanted to talk to Green, Brador continued, because Green's "name came up in the investigation." Id. at 6. At this point, Brador again emphasized:

Of course, like I said again, I mean, you talking to use is completely voluntary. Okay. I understand you can't just walk outta here[,] and you ... feel like you're forced to [be] here because[,] you know, you're handcuffed, but like I said[,] if at any moment you ... want to shut the f--- up you, you want us to shut up and stop talking to you[,] all you gotta say is I don't wanna talk. We'll ... get the guard[,] and you'll ... be on your way. Okay?

Id. at 7–8. Green responded, "Okay." Id. at 8.

In the course of the ensuing interview, Green denied any knowledge of the robbery, saying that he felt "frustrated" and "railroaded" by the detectives’ questions. Id. at 11. Brador and Garner kept pressing, however, and when Green asked if he was "being accuse[d] of shooting someone," Brador responded, "yes." Id. at 14. Brador then told Green, "somebody's got to fess up to it and right now, I mean, what we've learned in the investigation is that you, you were, you were the shooter in this case." Id. at 15. After some further prodding, Green acknowledged that he got into a fight with a stranger on the evening in question and that during the ensuing scuffle someone "start[ed] shooting." Id. at 18–20. Green repeatedly emphasized, however, that he did not shoot anyone. See, e.g. , id. at 18–22.

Brador and Garner asked Green to identify the shooter. When Green refused, Brador responded with seeming frustration. "I can't talk for you," he told Green, "I can't sit in your chair and, and save myself ... You have to do it." Id. at 26. After Green continued to insist that he did not fire any shots, Brador said, "the guy who got shot was lying then, huh?" Id. at 36. Green again asked if he ...