Court filing
Government's Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion to Suppress — United States v. Adedayo Ilori
No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL · Doc. 41 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 41 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- v. – 20 Cr. 378 (LJL)
ADEDAYO ILORI,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ADEDAYO ILORI’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Tara M. La Morte
Cecilia E. Vogel
Assistant United States Attorneys
Of Counsel
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 41 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 5
Introduction
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in response to the
defendant Adedayo Ilori’s motion to suppress his post arrest statements made to law enforcement
on March 4, 2020, after his invocation of his right to counsel. The Government concedes that
those post arrest statements are inadmissible in the Government’s case-in-chief. However, in the
event Ilori testifies at trial, Ilori’s post arrest statements are admissible to impeach Ilori on cross-
examination or in rebuttal.
Defendant Adedayo Ilori’s Post Arrest Statements
Are Admissible Impeachment Evidence
A. Applicable Law
Statements obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda rights may be used to impeach
the defendant on cross examination or in rebuttal. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 722 (1975)
(“[I]t does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against [the defendant] in the
prosecution’s case in chief is barred for all purposes . . . Again, the impeaching material would
provide valuable aid to the jury in assessing the defendant's credibility); United States v.
Douglas, 525 F.3d 225, 248 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[S]tatements taken from a defendant in violation of
his Miranda rights, though they may not be introduced by the government during its case-in-
chief, are nonetheless admissible to impeach statements made by the defendant in the course of
his testimony”). “[A]ssuming that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent effect on proscribed
police conduct, sufficient deterrence flows when the evidence in question is made unavailable to
the prosecution in its case in chief.” Hass, 420 U.S. at 721 (quoting Harris v. New York, 401
U.S. 222, 224, (1971)). “[I]nadmissibility would pervert the constitutional right into a right to
falsify free from the embarrassment of impeachment evidence from the defendant’s own mouth.”
Id. at 723. “[T]he shield provided by Miranda is not to be perverted to a license to testify
1
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 41 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 5
inconsistently, or even perjuriously, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent
utterances.” Id. at 722.
Statements obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda rights are admissible to
impeach the defendant “provided that ‘the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal
standards.’” Hass, 420 U.S. at 722 (citing Harris, 401 U.S. at 224). Such statements are
“trustworthy” when they are voluntary, and the mere fact that the statements were obtained in
violation of Miranda does not make the statements involuntary. Id. (holding that statements
obtained in violation of Miranda were admissible for the purpose of impeachment where there
was no evidence that the statements were involuntary or coerced); Parsad v. Greiner, 337 F.3d
175, 184 (2d Cir. 2003) (“The mere fact that police officers improperly question a suspect after
he invokes his right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation does not render his
subsequent statements the product of coercion.”). Whether a defendant made statements
voluntarily depends on the totality of the circumstances in which the defendant made the
statements. United States v. Valdez, 16 F.3d 1324, 1329 (2d Cir. 1994). “Three factors are
relevant to this inquiry: (1) the conduct of the law enforcement officers; (2) the conditions under
which the interrogation occurred; and (3) the accused’s background.” Id.
B. Discussion
Ilori’s post arrest statements are admissible for impeachment purposes if Ilori testifies.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, and as made clear in the recorded post arrest
statements, Ilori’s post arrest statements were clearly voluntary; nor does Ilori challenge the
voluntariness of his statements. Ilori was questioned by law enforcement agents after his arrest
while being transported in the law enforcement agents’ vehicle and while in the offices of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The law enforcement agents neither threatened nor used
2
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 41 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 5
physical force against Ilori. On the contrary, the law enforcement agents were professional and
courteous throughout the questioning, and Ilori at one point even expressed his appreciation of
the agents’ respectfulness. Ex. A at 20:18-20:25 (“I appreciate the courtesy that you guys are
affording me”). 1 Although the law enforcement agents confronted Ilori with some incriminating
evidence, namely a photograph of him, his co-defendant Herode Chancy, and the confidential
source meeting together, as well as purported information provided by Chancy implicating Ilori,
see, e.g., Ex. A at 14:40-14:55, Ex. B 34:20-35:33, “officers routinely confront suspects with
incriminating evidence,” and that conduct alone, unless excessive, does not render a defendant’s
statements involuntary. Parsad, 337 F.3d at 185. Moreover, there is no indication that Ilori’s
personal background rendered the statements involuntary. On the contrary, Ilori is 41 years old,
has multiple prior arrests and convictions, and is therefore familiar with the criminal justice
system. See, e.g., United States v. Jenkins, No. 02 CR. 1384 (RCC), 2003 WL 1461477, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2003) (finding defendant’s post arrest statements made in violation of
Miranda were nevertheless voluntary and admissible for impeachment purposes where defendant
was not subject to lengthy, coercive questioning or physical punishment, defendant was not
physically or mentally unwell, and defendant was 26 years old and had prior felony convictions).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Government concedes that the defendant’s post arrest
statements made after the defendant invoked his right to counsel are inadmissible in the
1
The referenced exhibits are the recordings included as exhibits with Ilori’s suppression motion.
3
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 41 Filed 11/02/20 Page 5 of 5
Government’s case-in-chief, but the statements are voluntary and therefore admissible for the
purpose of impeachment on cross-examination or rebuttal in the event Ilori testifies at trial.
Dated: New York, New York
November 2, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: ___________________________
Tara M. La Morte
Cecilia E. Vogel
Assistant United States Attorney
(212) 637-1041/1084
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.41.0.pdf
- Size
- 67,906 bytes
- SHA-256
- e2cd5ba93309234e3fbde9e503ac5ae23ec58c0a0ba90aeafada323b532ab381
- Original
- PACER (login required)