United States v. Cecil Hsu

Cecil Hsu appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Hsu contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to DEA Agent Hill and in allowing the admission of the statements at trial. Hsu contends that federal agents violated his fifth amendment rights when Agent Hill questioned him about his involvement in the alleged drug conspiracy within thirty minutes after Hsu had invoked his right to remain silent, thereby terminating a first interrogation by DEA Agent Valentine on the same subject. FACTS

Cecil Hsu and codefendant Jerry Cantrell were indicted for conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Hsu filed a motion to suppress a post-arrest confession made to DEA Agent Hill, alleging that it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.

The parties submitted the following evidence on Hsu’s suppression motion. In April 1986, DEA Agent Schmidt, acting undercover, began negotiating with Hsu’s codefendant, Cantrell, to purchase cocaine. On April 30, 1986, Cantrell and…

dissenting:

An interrogation of a criminal defendant must cease once the defendant has invoked his right to remain silent. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-77 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627-29 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1976). As the majority acknowledges, “the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his ‘right to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’ ” Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321, 326 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (footnote omitted). Because Cecil Hsu’s right to remain silent was not “scrupulously honored”, I must respectfully dissent.

Hsu was arrested in a department store and a DEA agent read him his rights outside the store. After answering a few questions, Hsu invoked his right to remain silent. At that point, the questioning temporarily ceased. Hsu was then driven to a residence a few blocks away. While he was kept waiting in the car, a second DEA agent readvised him of his Miranda rights and asked him a series of questions. Hsu seeks to suppress the answers he gave during this second interrogation.

The general rule is that after a defendant has invoked his right to…

852 F.2d 407 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil HSU, Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-5282. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 7, 1988. Decided June 7, 1988. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 8, 1988. Roger J. Rosen and David M. Dudley, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Ralph F. Hirschmann, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FARRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and McKIBBEN, * District Judge. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 Cecil Hsu appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Hsu contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to DEA Agent Hill and in allowing the admission of the statements at trial. Hsu contends that federal agents violated his fifth amendment rights when Agent Hill questioned him about his involvement in the alleged drug conspiracy within thirty minutes after Hsu had invoked his right to remain silent, thereby terminating a first…