United States v. Clifford Theophilus Bogle
114 F.3d 1271, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14520, 325 U.S. App. D.C. 63 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Express questioning of a suspect in custody only constitutes 'interrogation' for the purposes of Miranda if the questions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Questions about a separate crime in which the individual is a victim or witness, not a suspect, are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response for the crime of arrest.
Facts:
- The appellant's brother, Delroy Bogle, was murdered on June 5, 1995.
- Three days later, on June 8, police witnessed the appellant, Bogle, chase and shoot another man, Cordell Johnson, multiple times.
- Bogle was arrested and placed in police custody around 4:30 p.m.
- About six hours after his arrest, Detective Gonzales advised Bogle of his Miranda rights.
- Bogle acknowledged his rights but stated he did not want to talk at that time and would talk later, complaining of a toothache.
- Around midnight, Detective Parker, who was investigating the murder of Bogle's brother, was introduced to Bogle.
- Detective Parker told Bogle he only wanted to talk about his brother's murder, not the murder of Cordell Johnson.
- While discussing the murder of his brother, Bogle interrupted Detective Parker and spontaneously made an incriminating statement about the Johnson murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Bogle was charged in U.S. District Court with second-degree murder while armed, assault, and firearms offenses.
- Before trial, Bogle filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statement he made to Detective Parker, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
- The district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Bogle of all charges.
- Bogle (appellant) appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does express questioning by a police officer of a suspect in custody, who has invoked his right to remain silent, constitute an 'interrogation' under Miranda if the questions pertain to a separate crime in which the suspect is not a suspect and are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?
Opinions:
Majority - D. H. Ginsburg, Circuit Judge
No. Express questioning of a suspect in custody does not constitute an 'interrogation' under Miranda unless it is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The court rejected a per se rule that all express questioning is interrogation. Instead, it adopted the standard from Rhode Island v. Innis, which defines interrogation as either express questioning or its functional equivalent that the police should know is 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.' In this case, Detective Parker's questions were about the murder of Bogle's brother, a crime for which Bogle was not a suspect. Parker explicitly stated he was not there to discuss the Cordell Johnson murder. Therefore, the questions were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response about the Johnson murder, and Bogle's subsequent statement was a spontaneous confession, not the product of an interrogation. Because there was no interrogation, Miranda's protections were not triggered.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of 'interrogation' under Miranda within the D.C. Circuit, aligning it with other federal circuits. By rejecting a bright-line rule for express questioning, the court reinforces a more flexible, context-dependent standard that focuses on the objective likelihood of eliciting an incriminating response. This gives law enforcement officers the ability to question a suspect about unrelated crimes in which they are a witness or victim, even after the suspect has invoked their right to silence regarding the crime for which they are in custody. However, it requires officers to be careful that such questioning is not a pretext or functionally equivalent to interrogating the suspect about the crime of arrest.
