US v. Rodney Williamson

Filing

Amending order/opinion filed [998647249] amending and superseding Unpublished Authored Opinion [998646271-2]. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00474-NCT-1 Copies to all parties.. [08-4055]

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 1 of 13

Filed:

August 4, 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4055
(1:06-cr-00474-NCT-1)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY ANTON WILLIAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed August 3, 2011, as follows:
On the cover sheet, attorney information section, the names of
“ON BRIEF” counsel “Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina” are deleted and
replaced with “Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Greg D.
Andres, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 2 of 13

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY ANTON WILLIAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 09-8915)

Argued:

May 10, 2011

Decided:

August 3, 2011

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished opinion.
Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and
Senior Judge Hamilton joined.

ARGUED: J. David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Vijay Shanker,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney
General, Greg D. Andres, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 3 of 13

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
Appellant challenges the admission of a recorded statement,
made

to

indicted

a

confidential

but

before

he

informant
was

after

arrested.

Appellant

Because

we

had

been

find

that

recording may have implicated Appellant’s right against selfincrimination,

we

vacate

and

remand

to

determine

if

the

before

our

Government violated the Fifth Amendment.

I.
This
Court.

is

the

second

time

this

case

has

come

We previously summarized the key facts:

Rodney Anton Williamson was indicted, along with
others, and charged with one count of conspiracy to
distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
The sealed
indictment was issued December 18, 2006, and a warrant
for Williamson’s arrest was issued the following day.
In January 2007, a confidential informant, acting in
concert
with
law
enforcement
agents,
met
with
Williamson while wearing a recording and transmitting
device.
At the conclusion of the meeting, law
enforcement attempted to arrest Williamson on the
outstanding warrant; however, he successfully evaded
arrest. . . .
Williamson was eventually apprehended
and arraigned on June 12, 2007.
United States v. Williamson, 337 Fed. Appx. 288, 289-290 (4th
Cir. 2009) (unpublished, per curiam) (hereinafter, “Williamson
I”).
At trial, the Government sought to introduce, inter alia,
the recorded statement between Appellant and the confidential
2

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

informant, Edison Alberty.

Page: 4 of 13

The transcript of that recording

goes on for forty pages in the record and contains numerous
allusions to the sale, weights, and transportation of drugs by
various means.
recording

was

J.A. 330-370.
“very

The district court noted that the

damaging”

to

Appellant

parts of the tape were “unintelligible.”

and

worried

that

J.A. 285, 297, 290.

Although the district court initially offered the Government an
opportunity to redact the recording, Appellant’s trial counsel
asked to play the entire recording anyway.

After the district

court suggested Appellant’s trial counsel confirm that decision
with

her

client,

the

court

proceeded

to

play

the

entire

recording for the jury.
Subsequently,
recording

as

Appellant’s

“complicated”

trial

and

counsel

difficult

the

understand,

to

portrayed

and

questioned whether it personally implicated Appellant in drug
dealing.
origins

Government’s S.J.A. 10.
and

argument:

importance
“these

are

of
the

this

The Government stressed the
recording

[Appellant]’s

in

own

its

words

closing
. . . .”

Appellant’s S.J.A. 20.

Rhetorically, the Government asked “[d]o

you need fingerprints?

[Appellant] told you he left [the drugs

with a third party].”

Id. at 20-21.

paper

trail

in

the

case,

the

Regarding the lack of a

Government

highlighted

that

Appellant “even says during the recording . . . that he didn’t
have any thing [houses or cars] in his name.”
3

Id. at 23.

In

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

conclusion, the Government emphasized:
His organization, his conspiracy.”

Page: 5 of 13

“He said it.

Id. at 23.

His words.

Appellant was

subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In his first appeal, Appellant claimed that the admission
of the recording violated his right to counsel under the Sixth
Amendment.

In an unpublished, per curiam decision, our Court

found that this admission did not constitute plain error, namely
because we had previously “held that the Sixth Amendment right
to

counsel

does

not

attach

even

after

a

defendant

has

been

arrested based on the filing of a criminal complaint nor is the
right triggered during the period between a defendant’s arrest
and

his

arraignment.”

Williamson

I,

337

Fed.

Appx.

at

291

(citations omitted). 1
Appellant petitioned for certiorari.

The Government then

conceded that the Sixth Amendment did attach upon the issuance
of the sealed indictment, but maintained that Appellant could
not show the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

On June 21,

2010, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of the
Solicitor General’s brief.

Williamson v. United States, 130 S.

1

We found meritless Appellant’s other claims about the
substitution and effectiveness of his trial counsel. Williamson
I, 337 Fed. Appx. at 291.
Those issues are no longer in
contention.

4

Appeal: 08-4055

Ct.

Document: 117

3461

Scalia,

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

(2010).

Justice

Chief

Thomas,

Justice
and

Page: 6 of 13

Roberts

Justice

along

Alito

with

dissented

Justice
for

the

reasons stated in Nunez v. United States, 554 U.S. 911 (2008)
(Scalia,

J.

dissenting).

The

dissent

in

Nunez

primarily

contended that the Court has “no power to set aside (vacate)
another court’s judgment unless we find it to be in error.”

Id.

at 912.

II.
A.
Since

Appellant’s

trial

counsel

failed

to

raise

any

constitutional issues at trial, we continue to review for plain
error.

Williamson I, 337 Fed. Appx. at 289.

The
violated

parties
the

now

Sixth

agree

Amendment

that

introducing

because

attached when Appellant was indicted.
377 U.S. 201 (1964).

the

the

right

recording
to

counsel

Massiah v. United States,

But the parties disagree about whether

that constituted harmless error -- and focus on the importance
of

Alberty’s

recording

witness testimony.
the

Sixth

and

the

reliability

of

cooperating

We need not delve into the net effects of

Amendment

violation,

however,

because

this

case

involves another unresolved constitutional issue.
The Fifth Amendment establishes that no person “shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself .
5

Appeal: 08-4055

. . .”

Document: 117

U.S.

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Const.

amend.

V.

Page: 7 of 13

This

“basic,”

“[c]ardinal”

guarantee requires that “men are not to be exploited for the
information necessary to condemn them before the law, [and] that
. . . a prisoner is not ‘to be made the deluded instrument of
his own conviction.’”
(1961)
1824)).

(quoting

2

Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 581

Hawkins,

Pleas

of

the

Crown

595

(8th

ed.

“The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by

the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal
defendants.”

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259,

264 (1990).
This right “was hard-earned by our forefathers,” Quinn v.
United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161-62 (1955), and reflects “many
of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations,” including
a “preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial
system of criminal justice,” “our sense of fair play,” and our
“fear that self-incriminating statements will be . . . abuse[d]”
and untrustworthy.

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S.

52,

also

84

(1964);

see

Winthrow

v.

Williams,

(1993) (citing Murphy, 378 U.S. at 55).

507

U.S.

680

Therefore, the Fifth

Amendment “must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the
right it was intended to secure . . . . [T]o treat it as a
historical relic, at most merely to be tolerated [] is to ignore
its development and purpose.”

Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161-62.

6

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 8 of 13

“[S]ince at least as long ago as 1807, when Chief Justice
Marshall first gave attention to the matter in the trial of
Aaron

Burr,

all

have

agreed

compulsory

self-incrimination

Hoffa

United

v.

Appellants’

States,

statements,

that
is

a

necessary

some

385

kind

U.S.

elicited

via

element

of

293,

of

compulsion.”

303-304

confidential

(1966).

informants,

can violate the Fifth Amendment if they “rise to the level of
compulsion

or

coercion”

or

are

not

Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990).

voluntary.

Illinois

v.

Perkins also noted that the

degree of compulsion in that case was diminished because “no
charges
. . . .”

had

been

Id.

at

filed
299.

on

the

In

subject

turn,

“a

of

the

confession

interrogation
obtained

by

compulsion must be excluded whatever may have been the character
of the compulsion, and whether the compulsion was applied in a
judicial proceeding or otherwise.”

Wan v. United States, 266

U.S. 1, 14-15 (1924) (citing Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532
(1897)).
When a defendant incriminates him or herself outside the
presence of counsel, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments can become
closely intertwined.

Namely, excluding counsel and eliciting an

incriminating

statement

proximately.

Furthermore,

often

occur

the

remedy

simultaneously
for

improper

or
self-

incriminating statements and for statements made without counsel
is often the same:

exclusion of that evidence.
7

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 9 of 13

The Supreme Court has recognized this conceptual overlap:
In

Maine

v.

relationship

Moulton,

between

the

excluding

incriminating statements.
involved

a

defendant
informant.

exploitation

by

acknowledged

attorneys

and

the

had
The

State

already
Court

of

an

been

held

to

self-

Moulton also

indicted

that

opportunity

close

eliciting

474 U.S. 159 (1985).

who

confidential

the

Court

the

and

a

“knowing

confront

the

accused without counsel being present is as much a breach of the
State’s obligation not to circumvent the right to the assistance
of

counsel

as

opportunity.”

is

the

intentional

creation

of

such

an

Id. at 176 (emphasis added).

More recently, in Kansas v. Ventris, the Court explicitly
noted that its Fifth and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence shared a
common

foundation.

In

that

case,

which

involved

a

Sixth

Amendment challenge to jailhouse informants, the Supreme Court
concluded that its “opinions under the Sixth Amendment, as under
the

Fifth,

have

held

that

to

ensure

that

interrogations
render

counsel

‘effective

entirely

representation

the
police

right

manipulation

impotent--depriving
by

counsel

legal aid and advice would help him.’”

covers

at

the

the

pretrial
does

not

defendant

only

stage

of

when

129 S. Ct. 1841, 1845

(2009) (quoting Massiah, 377 U.S. at 204 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted)) (emphasis added).

8

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

And

in

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Massiah

itself,

the

Page: 10 of 13

Court

pointed

out

that

a

defendant who is recorded by a confidential informant is “more
seriously imposed upon . . . because he did not even know that
he was under interrogation by a government agent.”
206 (citations omitted).

377 U.S. at

Massiah involved Fourth, Fifth, and

Sixth Amendment challenges when a federal agent surreptitiously
elicited statements from an indicted defendant.

Id. at 204.

The Court held that it violated “the basic protections of [the
Sixth Amendment] guarantee when there was used against him at
his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal
agents

had

indicted

deliberately

and

in

the

elicited

absence

of

from
his

him

after

counsel.”

he

had

Id.

at

been
206

(emphasis added).

Massiah also pointed out that “if such a rule

is

efficacy

to

have

any

it

must

apply

to

indirect

and

surreptitious interrogations as well as those conducted in the
jailhouse.”

Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
B.

This

case

potentially

implicates

Fifth

Amendment

issues,

since it involves a lengthy recitation of Appellant’s own words,
elicited after Appellant had been indicted, by a confidential
informant who was cooperating with the Government.

Appellant’s

incriminating statements, which the district court found to be
“very damaging” to him, J.A. 287, 290, were then directly used

9

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

against

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Appellant

and

introduced

Page: 11 of 13

as

evidence

during

the

government’s case in chief.
Because this issue has not been fully briefed before this
Court or addressed by the district court, we vacate and remand
so that the district court can determine if there has been a
Fifth Amendment violation.
question’

of

the

While the “‘ultimate constitutional

admissibility

of

a

confession

was

a

‘mixed

[question] of fact and law’ subject to plenary federal review,”
this

case

Court’s

involves

“subsidiary

jurisdiction.

Miller

(1985) (citations omitted).

factual
v.

questions”

Fenton,

474

beyond

U.S.

104,

our
112

Indeed, “we do not resolve any of

the disputed questions of fact relating to the details of what
transpired within the confession . . . or whether [Appellant]
actually did confess.”
(1944).

Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 152

In

comparable

something

was

“‘voluntary’

coercion,

express

or

determined

from

the

constitutional
or

was

implied,

is

totality

the
a

of

contexts,

product

question
all

the

of

of

whether

duress

fact

to

or
be

circumstances.”

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973).
On

remand,

the

district

court

should

determine

if

Appellant’s statements were subject to “some kind of compulsion”

10

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 12 of 13

or “were the product of any sort of coercion, legal or factual.” 2
Hoffa, 385 U.S. at 304.
whether

the

“fil[ing

The district court should also consider
of

charges]

on

the

subject

interrogation” affected the degree of compulsion.
U.S.

at

299.

Voluntariness,

in

turn,

should

of

the

Perkins, 496
be

“assessed

[using] the totality of all the surrounding circumstances -2

We are mindful of the Supreme Court’s additional guidance
in this area:
In Massiah, the Court pointed out that a
defendant is “more seriously imposed upon . . . because he did
not even know that he was under interrogation by a government
agent” in the first place. 377 U.S. at 206 (citations omitted).
Notably, Perkins distinguished itself from Massiah on the basis
that “[i]n the instant case no charges had been filed on the
subject of the interrogation . . . .” 496 U.S. at 299. Perkins
itself concerned the broader issue of whether jailhouse
informants must give Miranda warnings. In that context, Perkins
distinguished a jailhouse interview by an IRS agent on the
grounds that “[w]here the suspect does not know that he is
speaking to a government agent there is no reason to assume the
possibility that the suspect might feel coerced.”
496 U.S. at
299. More generally,
[a]lthough [] decisions [about the propriety of
interrogation
techniques
have]
framed
the
legal
inquiry in a variety of different ways, usually
through the ‘convenient shorthand’ of asking whether
the
confession
[is]
‘involuntary,’
Blackburn
v.
Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 207 (1960), the Court’s
analysis has consistently been animated by the view
that ‘ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial
system,’ Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 541 (1961),
and
that,
accordingly,
tactics
for
eliciting
inculpatory statements must fall within the broad
constitutional boundaries imposed by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s guarantee of fundamental fairness.
Id. at 301 (Brennan, J., concurring) (citing Miller v. Fenton,
474 U.S. 104, 109-110 (1985)).
We defer to the district court
for its initial consideration of the circumstances surrounding
Appellant’s conversation with confidential informant Alberty.

11

Appeal: 08-4055

Document: 117

Date Filed: 08/04/2011

Page: 13 of 13

both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the
interrogation.”
end,

the

findings

Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226.

district
and

court

might

should

consider

make

the

any

following

Towards this

necessary
factors

factual
and

the

extent, if any, to which they affected Appellant’s encounter
with Alberty: (1) the degree of police involvement in eliciting
Appellant’s statement; (2) Alberty’s knowledge of the impending
criminal prosecutions and his relationship to Appellant; (3) the
nature

of

Alberty’s

questions

and

demeanor;

character of Appellant’s statement and responses.

and

(4)

the

See id. at

298, 300 (examining “[un]equal” power dynamics; “intimidat[ion]
by the atmosphere;” “questions that may elicit an incriminating
response;” and whether defendant felt that his interrogator “had
any legal authority to force him to answer questions” or had the
ability to “affect [his] future treatment”); Schneckloth, 412
U.S. at 218 (considering the age and education of the accused
and the nature of the questioning in assessing voluntariness).

III.
For the reasons stated above, this case is
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

12