United States v. Stuart Easchief

MEMORANDUM

Stuart Easchief appeals from his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 81 and 1153 for committing arson within Indian country. We affirm.

Whether or not Easchief was in custody when he confessed to enkindling his home, he was not subjected to interrogation. The EMT’s question about what was going on was not interrogation because there was no reason that the EMT should have known that the query was “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 302 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). The EMT was evaluating whether Easchief was disoriented, and Easchief had previously answered similar questions without incriminating himself.

We need not decide whether the EMT’s follow-up question, “why?” was custodial interrogation. In light of the other evidence of Easchiefs motive and guilt, including his statement to a neighbor that he had torn up the house because he was upset with his wife and his response to the EMT’s initial question, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of Easchiefs response to the follow-up question was harmless even if it was erroneous. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.…