Dennis Rosa Collazo v. Wayne Estelle, Warden, California Mens Colony

898 F.2d 87 Dennis Rosa COLLAZO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne ESTELLE, Warden, California Mens Colony, Respondent-Appellee. No. 88-2443. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 8, 1989. Decided Sept. 1, 1989. As Amended March 14, 1990. As Amended May 8, 1990. Rehearing En Banc Ordered May 30, 1990. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. William D. Farber, San Rafael, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., for the State of Cal., Steve White and John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Martin S. Kaye and Aileen Bunney, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee. Before FARRIS, THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 Dennis Collazo appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that incriminating statements which he made while in custody should have been excluded at trial because they were the product of police coercion. We affirm. 2 On September 27, 1982, Collazo was arrested in connection with a fatal shooting and was taken to an interrogation room at the San Jose police station. After two police…

Dennis Collazo appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that incriminating statements which he made while in custody should have been excluded at trial because they were the product of police coercion. We affirm.

On September 27, 1982, Collazo was arrested in connection with a fatal shooting and was taken to an interrogation room at the San Jose police station. After two police officers advised him of his rights under Miranda, Collazo requested to confer with counsel. The police twice told Collazo that things “might be worse” for him if he did not cooperate, and that he might be charged with murder. The police then promptly terminated the interrogation. Three hours later, after speaking with his wife, Collazo initiated further discussions with the police and confessed to his role in the shooting. Collazo’s confession was admitted into evidence over his objection at trial. He was convicted of felony murder, burglary, and conspiracy, and was sentenced to 26 years imprisonment.

In Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987), the Supreme Court statéd the following test for determining whether a suspect’s…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. This case involves unmitigated and glaring police misconduct designed to undercut the Miranda warnings to which Collazo was entitled. In one breath the police told him he had certain rights, but in the next — when Collazo indicated he wished to avail himself of those rights — he was told that if he exercised them, he might be penalized for doing so. Here is the post advice of rights exchange as it was recorded on tape:

The police then departed, leaving Collazo to ponder whether he could afford to exercise his constitutional rights. Three hours later, and still in the interview room where he had been left, Collazo called back the police. He then abandoned his request for a lawyer, allegedly waived his rights, and confessed.

The ultimate question for us to resolve is “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged confession was obtained in a manner compatible with the requirements of the Constitution....” The same case that frames this question for us, Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 112 , 106 S.Ct. 445, 450 , 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985), also mandates that this is a “matter for independent federal determination.” Id. at 412, 106…