Report and Recommendation — United States v. Marvin Antwon Williams (Document 40, filed January 23, 2024)

Summary

Report and Recommendation in United States v. Marvin Antwon Williams, CR423-076, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, Document 40, filed January 23, 2024. It states that the defendant faces two counts of arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and moves to suppress statements he made to an investigator, arguing he had invoked the right to remain silent. The magistrate judge notes the motion was fully briefed with a hearing on January 22, 2024, and applies Miranda v. Arizona and Berghuis v. Thompkins. It concludes that the Government showed the statements were uncoerced because the defendant did not unequivocally invoke the right, and recommends that the Motion to Suppress be DENIED, with objections due within 14 days.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 6




                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                     SAVANNAH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
                          )
                          )
v.                        )                          CR423-076
                          )
MARVIN ANTWON WILLIAMS, )
                          )
          Defendant.      )

                REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

     Marvin Antwon Williams faces two counts of arson under 18 U.S.C.

§ 844(i). See doc. 1 (Indictment). After being detained and Mirandized,

see Gov. Ex. 1, at 7:23-26; 22:54-23:07, Williams told the Savannah Fire

Department Investigator interviewing him that “he started the fire in the

lane and the devil started the fires in the house, but the devil used

WILLIAMS’ hands to do it,” doc. 28-1 at 1. Williams moves to suppress

those statements, arguing that he had invoked the right to remain silent

and the responding officers should not have questioned him.              See

generally doc. 28. The Motion to Suppress is fully briefed, see id.; doc. 32,

and the Court held a hearing on the Motion on January 22, 2024, see doc.

39 (Minute Entry).



                                     1
     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 6




     Statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible

unless the Government establishes that the accused “in fact knowingly

and voluntarily waived [Miranda] rights.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441

U.S. 369, 373 (1979) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence

that: (1) a Miranda warning was given; (2) the suspect understood his

Miranda rights; and (3) the suspect made an uncoerced statement.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 384 (2010). Williams does not

dispute that he was Mirandized or that he understood his rights. See

generally doc. 28. His motion turns on the third prong–whether his

statement was uncoerced. Id. at 2-3.

     If a person in police custody indicates that he “wishes to remain

silent, the interrogation must cease.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,

473-74 (1966).   “[A]ny statement taken after the person invokes his

privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or

otherwise.” Id. at 474. If Williams invoked his right to remain silent and

responding officers did not end the interrogation, his statements

regarding who set the fires is “the product of compulsion” and therefore

inadmissible. See id.


                                    2
     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 6




     The right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously and

unequivocally.   See Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381-82.        “If the suspect’s

statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal [invocation], the officers

have no obligation to stop questioning him.” Davis v. United States, 512

U.S. 452, 461-62 (1994) (holding that the invocation of the right to

counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal); Berghuis, 560 U.S. at

381 (determining that “there is no principled reason to adopt different

standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda

right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in

Davis”).   Whether an invocation of the right to remain silent was

unambiguous and unequivocal is an objective inquiry; a suspect “‘must

articulate his desire to cut off questioning with sufficient clarity that a

reasonable police officer under the circumstances would understand the

statement to be an assertion of the right to remain silent.’” Medina v.

Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1101 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Coleman v.

Singeltary, 30 F.3d 1420, 1424 (11th Cir. 1994)).

     Williams claims he invoked his right to remain silent when he told

officers: “[D]on’t ask me no questions.” Gov. Ex. 1, at 23:07-10; doc. 28 at

1. But “don’t ask me no questions” was only the first part of Williams’


                                     3
     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 4 of 6




statement.     After reviewing the body camera footage submitted into

evidence, the Court finds that Williams’ complete response to being

Mirandized was to say: “Y’all don’t ask me no questions. You feel me?

Just say what you gotta say, but I ain’t gonna answer too many

questions.”1    Gov. Ex. 1, at 23:07-14.      By immediately following his

request that he not be asked questions with a declaration that he would

not answer “too many questions,” Williams injected ambiguity into his

attempted invocation.       Id. (emphasis added).       Williams’ statement

implies that he is willing to answer some questions–just not too many.

An unwillingness to answer “too many” questions is not the same as

unequivocally and unambiguously refusing to answer any questions. Cf.

United States v. Mikell, 102 F.3d 470, 477 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A] suspect’s

refusal to answer certain questions is not tantamount to the invocation

. . . of the constitutional right to remain silent.”). A reasonable officer

under the circumstances would not have understood Williams’ refusal to

answer “too many questions” as an assertion of the right to remain silent.


1  At the hearing, defense counsel argued that the Savannah Fire Department
Investigator questioning Williams spoke over or interrupted this statement. See
generally doc. 39 (Minute Entry). The Court finds that Williams’ statement was
continuous and that the investigator did not ask Williams any questions until
Williams finished saying that he would not “answer too many questions.” See Gov.
Ex. 1, at 23:07-15.
                                       4
     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 5 of 6




See Medina, 59 F.3d at 1101. The investigator was under no obligation

to cut off questioning. See Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381.

     The    Government     has    sufficiently   demonstrated    Williams’

statements to investigators were uncoerced, as Williams failed to

unequivocally and unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent.

Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381-82, 384; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74.

Therefore, Williams’s Motion to Suppress should be DENIED. Doc. 28.

     This report and recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district

judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may

file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all

parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time

to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the

assigned district judge.

     After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this

R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are


                                    5
     Case 4:23-cr-00076-RSB-CLR Document 40 Filed 01/23/24 Page 6 of 6




advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of

rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,

648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F.

App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).

     SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 23rd day of

January, 2024.



                                   _______________________________
                                   CHRISTOPHER L. RAY
                                   UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
                                   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA




                                    6


File and source

File

40.pdf

Size

126,845 bytes

SHA-256

f03c899c29f45e807972c233aabd6aff2938fe48384eb549b3f017bd60f5bae7

Our copy

40.pdf

Original

No public link identified.