Opinion
Criminal Action No. 02-815.
August 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant, Jamal Ezell, is charged in a twelve count Indictment with six counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1951 and six counts of using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The charges arise out of six robberies in and around Philadelphia, Upper Darby and Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania between March 5, 2002 and March 20, 2002.
Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, in which he challenges the admissibility of two statements: (1) defendant's May 17, 2002 statement to Philadelphia detectives in which he confessed to the March 12, 2002 robbery of the Wine and Spirit Store located on Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, and the March 5, 2002 robbery of the Wine and Spirit Store located in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and; (2) defendant's May 20, 2002 statement to Montgomery County detectives, in which he confessed to the March 5, 2002 robbery of the Wine and Spirit Store located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, the March 12, 2002 robbery of the Peoples Cleaners located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, and the March 15, 2002 robbery of the Hooters Restaurant located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania. Defendant alleges that his confession to the Philadelphia detectives is inadmissible because any purported waiver of his Miranda rights was unknowing, unintelligent and involuntary and because the statements were coerced and involuntary under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant contends that his confession to the Montgomery County detectives is inadmissable because it was obtained after he requested an attorney, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
II. FACTS
A. Confession to Philadelphia County Police Department
On or about May 9, 2002, Philadelphia Detectives Stephen Clark and Robert Geary participated in a proffer session of Eric Jewel, who was apprehended while attempting to rob a Houlihan's restaurant in Abington, Pennsylvania in March 2002. Also participating in the proffer session were agent Vito Roselli, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and Montgomery County Detectives James Godby and Richard Gehman.
In the proffer session, Mr. Jewel admitted that he participated in a separate robbery of a Wine and Spirit Store located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania on March 5, 2002 ("Montgomery County robbery"). According to Detectives Geary and Clark, Mr. Jewel identified defendant as a confederate in that robbery from a photograph obtained by means of the Pennsylvania criminal database. Transcript of July 30, 2004 hearing ("Tr. 1") at 11 and 52.
The witnesses at the suppression hearing referred to the March 5, 2002 robbery of the Wine and Spirit Store located in Upper Merion Township as the Montgomery County robbery. For the sake of clarity, the Court will do the same.
After the proffer session, Detective Clark testified that he and Detective Geary began investigating defendant's possible involvement in the robbery of a Wine and Spirit Store located on Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia on March 12, 2002 ("Delaware Avenue robbery'), which, according to Detective Clark, appeared to be similar to the Montgomery County robbery. Tr. 1 at 10. After confirming that defendant matched the description of one of the perpetrators of the Delaware Avenue robbery, Detectives Geary and Clark went to the Delaware Avenue Wine and Spirit Store on March 16, 2002 to interview two victims of that robbery. Tr. 1 at 10 and 54. Each victim independently identified defendant as the taller of the two males who committed the robbery. Tr. 1 at 12 and 54.
Based on the identifications by the two victims, Detectives Geary and Clark prepared an affidavit of probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant for defendant. The detectives then performed a custody check to determine whether defendant was in police custody at that time. That search revealed that defendant was in custody on an unrelated charge at the Philadelphia Police Administrative Building.
The following day, on May 17, 2002, Detectives Geary and Clark procured a warrant for defendant's arrest. Thereafter, at approximately 9:30 a.m., they went to the Police Administration Building and obtained custody of defendant. Tr. 1 at 59. On the ride back to their police station, the detectives said that they told defendant they had a warrant for his arrest, but did not talk to him about the substance of the arrest warrant. Tr. 1 at 17 and 56.
Upon their arrival at the police station, the detectives placed defendant in a detention room. Shortly thereafter, they brought defendant to Detective Clark's desk to complete a biographical information sheet. After completing the biographical information sheet, Detective Clark testified:
At that point in time, I explained to Mr. Ezell that we had an arrest warrant for him, charging him with the robbery of the wine and spirits shop that had occurred at 1100 South Delaware Avenue. I told him at that point in time that there were — we knew of other defendants involved in this and there were a number of people cooperating in this investigation, and I told him I thought it would be to his advantage if he would do the same and cooperate with the police and tell them everything he knows about this crime.
. . .
I told him that if he did cooperate with the police and was truthful and told us everything that he had been involved and named his codefendants, that at the time of sentencing these cases I would be — I would go in front of the court and explain to the judge the amount of his cooperation."
Tr. 1 at 19, 20.
On cross-examination, Detective Clark testified as follows:
Q: All right. So then you bring him up to Major Crimes and you do the information and you take the information from him, the biographical information, and you tell him that Eric Jewel has told us that you were involved in this robbery right?
A: I don't know if I told him that then. I told him that I had an arrest warrant for him, he was being charged with a robbery that occurred at 1100 Delaware Avenue, that there were other people cooperating with the police. I don't know that I told him at that point in time that it was Eric Jewel; I may have, I don't remember.
Q: You told him, however, that somebody involved in the investigation had ident — had — was cooperating with the police and identified him?
A: I told him there were other people involved in these robberies who were cooperating with the police, I thought it would be to his advantage for him himself to do the same.
Q: You gave him the inference then that somebody was cooperating and said he was involved in the robbery, right, at Delaware Avenue?
A: Yes.
Q: But Eric Jewel didn't tell you he was involved in the robbery at Delaware Avenue, did he?
A: I told him that there were other people involved in the robbery, these robberies, who were cooperating with the police.
Q: Who else did you speak to who told you, who was involved in the robberies, said that he was involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery?
A: Nobody had told me that at that point in time.
Tr. 1 at 44. Both Detectives Clark and Geary admitted that Mr. Jewel had not, in fact, identified defendant as a participant in the Delaware Avenue robbery at the time of the May 17, 2002 interrogation. Tr. 1 at 11 and 53.
Regarding this same conversation with defendant, Detective Geary testified that he and Detective Clark told defendant "he had been identified by the employees of the state store as participating in the robbery and also that we had information from his co-conspirators that he was involved and that these people were cooperating, and it would probably be in his best interest to also cooperate so we could get his story." Tr. 1 at 58. On cross-examination, Detective Geary stated as follows:
Q: But earlier on direct examination, you also said something about his co-conspirators having identified him, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, that was a reference to Eric Jewel, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Because at that time on May 17, 2002 you haven't spoken to any of his other co-conspirators yet, is that correct?
A: No.
Q: And the only quote, "co-conspirator" of Mr. Ezell's that you had any conversation with was Eric Jewel as of that time, as of May 17th.
. . .
Q: I mean, you did tell Mr. Ezell that one of his co-conspirators identified him as part of the robbery and part of the Delaware Avenue robbery, right?
A: I believe our words to him were, he was identified by co-conspirators —
Q: Right.
A: — as being involved in a robbery.
Q: Okay, that's what you think you said a couple of minutes ago when I asked you the question?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. The point is Mr. Ezell had been identified by Eric Jewel as being involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery, is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Tr. 1 at 73 and 75.
Detective Geary and Clark claimed that, at that point, defendant denied knowing anything about the Delaware Avenue robbery and said he had nothing further to say. Tr. 1 at 19 and 58. They then terminated the interrogation and placed defendant in the detention room. Tr. 1 at 19 and 58.
According to Detective Clark, approximately thirty to forty minutes later, defendant indicated that he wanted to make a statement. Tr. 1 at 45. Detective Clark testified:
We were sitting in the squad room, I don't recall whether or not he knocked on the door of that detention room and got my attention or somebody else's attention, but at some point in time I went back or myself and Detective Geary went back, and he indicated that he wanted to tell us about his robbery.
Tr. 1 at 21.
Detectives Geary and Clark then moved defendant from the detention room to a computer workstation. There they administered Miranda warnings using a written waiver form. Tr. 1 at 24 and 61. Detective Geary stated that he read the warnings aloud to defendant and observed defendant read the form. Tr. 1 at 61. According to the detectives, defendant stated both orally and in writing that he understood and waived each of the rights listed on the form. Tr. 1 at 24 and 62. Defendant signed the form at approximately 12:39 p.m. Tr. 1 at 24 and 62.
After completing the form, Detectives Geary and Clark began questioning defendant about the Delaware Avenue robbery. Detective Geary typed out each question, read the question aloud to defendant, then transcribed defendant's response before continuing to the next question. Tr. 1 at 65. The interrogation lasted approximately one hour. Tr. 1 at 65. After completing the interrogation, Detectives Geary and Clark printed the statement and presented it to defendant for review. At that time, defendant added information to one of his answers, which Detective Geary included in the statement. Detective Geary then re-printed the statement and defendant signed the statement at 1:40 p.m. Tr. 1 at 66.
Thereafter, the detectives began questioning defendant about the Montgomery County robbery. Detective Clark testified that he told defendant Mr. Jewel had identified him as a participant in that robbery. The detectives also promised defendant they would testify regarding his cooperation at his sentencing hearing. Tr. 1 at 26. Detective Clark stated that, at that point, defendant denied being involved in the Montgomery County robbery and said he had nothing further to say. According to Detectives Geary and Clark, they then terminated the interrogation and returned defendant to the detention room. Tr. 1 at 26.
Approximately thirty to forty minutes later, Detectives Geary and Clark stated that another detective in the unit told them defendant wanted to make a statement. Tr. 1 at 26 and 68. At that point, they brought defendant to the computer workstation, informed him his Miranda rights were still in effect, and began questioning him about the Montgomery County robbery. Tr. 1 at 27 and 68. Detective Geary testified that defendant then gave a statement confessing to the Montgomery County robbery. The detectives transcribed and printed the statement for defendant's review and defendant signed the statement at 3:24 p.m. Tr. 1 at 29.
Defendant's account of the interrogation differs from Detectives Geary and Clark's testimony. Defendant claimed that the detectives began interrogating him during the transport from the Police Administration Building to the station. Defendant testified:
Well, basically the younger of the detectives, Geary, Robert Geary, he stated that I was looking at a lot of time and I responded that I didn't know what he was talking about. And he responded then that that ain't what Eric Jewel stated in a proffer. And he asked me did I know an Eric Jewel and I said no. He also stated do I remember being at a Motel 6 and I stated maybe, I been to plenty hotels. And he stated that they had me on camera at a Motel 6, that Mr. Jewel said that we was going to rob . . . He said and which was around the corner from another Wine and Spirit Shop that you all did rob, which Mr. Jewel told him, and he asked me did I like Belvedere Vodka. And I asked him what did that matter, you know, and he stated, well, it seems you did from what Mr. Jewel told me about the two Wine and Spirit Shops . . . Uhm, he said that it would be best for me to cooperate and that Eric Mitchell was being a hard head, being a tough guy and that he was going to make sure Eric Mitchell got life. And if I didn't cooperate, he would make sure that I got life, too.
Transcript of August 2, 2004 hearing ("Tr. 2") at 70-71. Defendant stated that he did not receive Miranda warnings prior to, or during, the ride to the police station. Tr. 2 at 72.
Once they arrived at the police station, defendant testified that the detectives placed him in a small room and handcuffed him to a chair. Tr. 2 at 73. Much of the interrogation occurred in that room, with the detectives leaving and returning to the room to ask him questions regarding his age, address and social security number. According to defendant, a short time later, Detective Geary returned to the room and told defendant if he cooperated, the detectives would try to arrange for defendant to receive concurrent sentences on the Delaware Avenue and Montgomery County robberies. Tr. 2 at 73. On this critical issue, defendant testified as follows:
Q: Okay, what did you say in response to that?
A: I said that — I said I would like to see it in black and white, in writing.
Q: What did he say?
A: He said: well, I can't do it right now but I will make a couple phone calls for you and try to see the best promise I can get you.
Q: What did you say then?
A: I said okay.
. . .
Q: Okay. When did you — when did you have the discussion concerning your involvement?
A: Well, he came back to the room and he stated that he talked to a detective from Montgomery County and they said they maybe can get the charges to run together. And he asked me was I going to give up a statement and I told him yes.
Q: And did you give up any statement at that time, did you say anything about your involvement?
A: Well, I told him that I was only involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery.
Q: Okay. And then, okay, and then what happened? So, at that time, you told them you were involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: All right, then what happened next?
A: Well, I was going to start telling — well, I think I started telling him a little bit and he was like, all right, well, hold on, we're going to go to the desk and we were going to type it up or write it.
Tr. 2 at 74-76. After bringing him to the desk, defendant said the detectives gave him Miranda warnings using a written waiver form. He then gave the written statement about his involvement in the Delaware Avenue robbery. Tr. 2 at 77.
After he completed the statement regarding the Delaware Avenue robbery, defendant testified he was again placed in the detention room. Tr. 2 at 78. Shortly thereafter, Detective Clark returned to the room and began questioning him about the fact that the perpetrators of both the Montgomery County robbery and the Delaware Avenue robbery had asked the victims for Belvedere vodka. Tr. 2 at 77. At that point, defendant said he admitted his involvement in the Montgomery County robbery. Tr. 2 at 77.
B. Confession to Montgomery County Police
After the interrogation, Detectives Geary and Clark faxed a copy of defendant's May 17, 2002 statement to Montgomery County Police Detectives James Godby and Richard Gehman. Based upon defendant's confession, detective Godby obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest on May 29, 2002.
Prior to obtaining the arrest warrant, on or about May 24, 2004, Detectives Godby and Gehman participated in a second proffer session of Mr. Jewel. In that proffer, Mr. Jewel identified defendant as his confederate in the Montgomery County robbery, the March 12, 2002 robbery of the Peoples Cleaners located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania ("Peoples Cleaners robbery"), and the March 15, 2002 robbery of the Hooters restaurant located in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania ("Hooters robbery"). Tr. 2 at 24 and 37.
On May 29, 2002, Detectives Godby and Gehman went to the Hooters restaurant to interview two victims of that robbery. Detective Godby testified that one employee identified defendant from a photo array as a perpetrator of the Hooters robbery; the other employee could not make an identification. Tr. 2 at 25. According to Detective Godby, based upon the identification by Mr. Jewel and one victim, he could have obtained an arrest warrant for defendant on the Hooters robbery, but did not do so because of time constraints. Tr. 2 at 37 and 44. Detective Godby testified that he could not have obtained an arrest warrant for the Peoples Cleaners robbery based solely upon the identification of defendant by Mr. Jewel. Tr. 2 at 37.
On May 30, 2002, Detective Godby and Montgomery County Detective Michael Milke traveled to the prison facility where defendant was detained to obtain custody of defendant and transport him to their station in Upper Merion Township. Detective Godby testified that, immediately after exiting the prison facility, he gave defendant verbal Miranda warnings and informed defendant of the allegations of the arrest warrant. Tr. 2 at 11. Detective Godby denied interrogating defendant during the approximately thirty-five minute drive to Upper Merion Township Police Station. Tr. 2 at 13.
Once they arrived at the police station, Detective Godby testified that he brought defendant to his office, where they were joined by Detective Gehman. Tr. 2 at 14. According to Detective Godby, he then administered Miranda warnings using a written waiver form. Tr. 2 at 14. After informing defendant of the right to counsel, the second right listed on the waiver form, Detective Godby testified that defendant stated, "I have an attorney, but I choose not to use him." Tr. 2 at 14. At that point, Detective Godby said he terminated the interrogation and called Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Ted Barry to determine how to proceed. Tr. 2 at 17. According to Detective Godby, Mr. Barry advised him to transcribe defendant's exact words and then to proceed with the interrogation. Tr. 2 at 18. Based on this advice, Detective Godby resumed the interrogation and directed defendant to write his exact words on the waiver form. Defendant did so, and then proceeded to waive the remaining rights on the waiver form. Tr. 2 at 18-19.
Detective Godby testified that defendant then gave a statement admitting his involvement in the Montgomery County robbery. Tr. 2 at 19-20. Thereafter, Detective Godby began questioning defendant about the Peoples Cleaners robbery. Tr. 2 at 20. After telling him the other defendants in the case were cooperating, Detective Godby said defendant became very cooperative and answered his questions about the Peoples Cleaners robbery and the Hooters robbery. Tr. 2 at 22. Detective Godby denied making any promises or threats to induce defendant's cooperation. Tr. 2 at 23.
Defendant did not testify regarding the Montgomery County interrogation on direct examination. On cross-examination, defendant testified that, after Detective Godby told him he had the right to remain silent, he told the detectives he no longer wished to speak to them. When questioned further about this statement, defendant elaborated, stating that he "asked them to call my attorney and then my attorney didn't answer the phone." Tr. 2 at 99. After the unsuccessful attempt to reach his attorney, defendant stated that Detectives Godby and Gehman showed him a picture of himself taken from a Motel 6 surveillance camera in the vicinity of the Montgomery County robbery shortly before that robbery took place. Tr. 2 at 102. According to defendant, Detective Godby then told him that his previous cooperation with the Philadelphia detectives "would not count" if he did not cooperate with the Montgomery County police. Tr. 2 at 102. At that point, defendant testified, he agreed to cooperate and made the statement transcribed by Detective Godby. Tr. 2 at 102.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Statement to Philadelphia County Police 1. Two-Step Interrogation under Missouri v. Seibert
Defendant takes the position that his May 17, 2002 statement to Detectives Geary and Clark should be suppressed because it was obtained pursuant to a two-step interrogation process in violation of the recent Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. Seibert, 124 S. Ct. 2601, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643 (2004). InSeibert, the Supreme Court struck down the "question-first" interrogation strategy, under which an officer initially interrogates a suspect without administering Miranda warnings and, only after eliciting a confession, administers the warnings and obtains a second statement ostensibly admissible in court. According to defendant, Detectives Geary and Clark utilized this tactic in his May 17, 2002 interrogation, withholding Miranda warnings from him until after he confessed to being involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery. Defendant contends that the use of this interrogation tactic renders the waiver of his Miranda rights unknowing and unintelligent, and his subsequent statement inadmissible.
The Court rejects defendant's argument. According to Detectives Clark and Geary, after their initial discussion with defendant in which they recounted the evidence against him and urged him to cooperate, defendant stated that he did not know anything about the Delaware Avenue robbery and that he had nothing further to say. When defendant later said he wanted to make a statement, both Detectives Clark and Geary testified that they administered Miranda warnings before questioning defendant about his involvement in the Delaware Avenue robbery. The Court finds that the detectives' testimony was thorough and consistent and credits their testimony.
In contrast, defendant's testimony was fragmented and internally inconsistent. According to defendant, he decided to give a statement based upon an alleged promise by Detective Geary to arrange concurrent sentences on the Delaware Avenue and the Montgomery County robberies. However, defendant then testified that he told the detectives, "I was only involved in the Delaware Avenue robbery" and, at first, gave a statement only as to that robbery. That evidence undermines defendant's testimony that he was motivated to cooperate by the promise of concurrent sentences for the two robberies. For that reason, the Court rejects defendant's testimony about his interrogation by Detectives Clark and Geary.
Based upon this assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the Court concludes that defendant did not, in fact, make any inculpatory statements prior to receiving Miranda warnings. Accordingly, Seibert's proscription against two-step interrogations was not violated in this case.
2. Voluntariness Under the Fourteenth Amendment
Defendant contends that his statement to the Philadelphia detectives was involuntary and coerced under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was precipitated by Detectives Geary and Clark's false statements regarding the evidence against him. Specifically, defendant argues that Detectives Geary and Clark told him that Mr. Jewel had identified him in the Delaware Avenue robbery, when in fact, Mr. Jewel had not identified him in that robbery at that time.
To determine the voluntariness of a confession, a court must consider the "effect the totality of the circumstances had upon the will of the defendant." See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27 (1973). The question in each case "is whether the defendant's will was overborne" when he confessed. Id. At 225-26. Factors to be considered include:
the youth of the accused; his lack of education or his low intelligence; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; the length of the detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep.Id. at 226.
A misrepresentation by a police officer during an interrogation is one factor to be considered in the totality of the circumstances. Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 607 (3d Cir. 1986). In Miller, the court stated:
While a lie told to the detainee about an important aspect of the case may affect the voluntariness of the confession, the effect of the lie must be analyzed in the context of all the circumstances of the interrogation. See, e.g., Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 737 (1969) (false statement by police officer that detainee's cousin had confessed, while relevant to issue of voluntariness, was insufficient to make an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissable).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that any misrepresentations made by Detectives Geary and Clark regarding Mr. Jewel's identification of defendant in the Delaware Avenue robbery does not render his subsequent confession involuntary. Defendant is 24 years old. He appeared during his testimony to be of at least average intelligence. There is no evidence that he was subjected to physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep during the interrogation. Additionally, defendant testified that he was familiar with the criminal justice system. According to defendant, prior to his arrest for the Delaware Avenue robbery, he had been arrested approximately nine to ten times on unrelated charges. Tr. 2 at 89-90. See Id. at 606 (holding that previous experience with criminal justice system was a relevant factor in determining whether a confession was voluntary).
The Court also concludes that the interrogation of defendant was not unduly long. According to Detective Geary and Clark, they obtained custody of defendant at approximately 9:30 a.m., and defendant completed his second statement at 3:24 p.m. During this period, defendant spent considerable time alone in the detention room. While the evidence regarding the length of the actual interrogation is not entirely clear, the Court finds that it was not significant in length. See, e.g., Id. (citing Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 (1966) (sixteen days); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 (1966) (four days); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (1958) (forty-nine hours)).
Based upon all of these factors, including the Court's ruling in Section 1(a) that, prior to making any incriminating statements, defendant was administered Miranda warnings and waived his Miranda rights, the Court concludes that any alleged misstatements by Detectives Geary and Clark regarding Mr. Jewel's identification of defendant as a participant in the Delaware Avenue robbery did not overbear defendant's will. There is a question whether Detectives Geary and Clark told defendant before he gave a statement that Mr. Jewel had identified him as a participant in the Delaware Avenue robbery, or "a robbery." However, there is no dispute that the detectives told defendant that he had been identified by two victims in the Delaware Avenue robbery. Under those circumstances, any misstatement by the detectives about Mr. Jewel's identification of defendant as a participant in the Delaware Avenue robbery would not, in the judgment of the Court, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, have overborne defendant's will. Defendant's Motion to Suppress on this ground will thus be denied.
2. Statement to Montgomery County Police
Defendant testified on cross-examination that, while being read his Miranda rights by Detective Godby and Gehman, he asked the detectives to call his attorney. Defendant claims that, although the detectives attempted to call his attorney at that time, after they were unable reach defendant's attorney, they continued interrogating defendant. According to defendant, the detectives' failure to suspend the interrogation until his attorney could be reached violated the Sixth Amendment, rendering his subsequent confession inadmissable.
The Court does not credit defendant's testimony that he requested an attorney during the interrogation. First, defendant did not testify on direct examination that he requested an attorney. Defendant raised the issue for the first time on cross-examination. Second, even on cross-examination, it took substantial prodding before defendant testified that he requested an attorney. His testimony regarding that interrogation was as follows:
Q: They advised you of the rights and then you wrote down your answer to it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And then as you see on question number two —
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: It says I have an attorney but choose not to use him at this time and it has the initials JE, do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And you actually said that to the detectives at that time?
A: Well, actually, I told the detectives that I did not want to talk to them.
Q: You told the detectives that you did not want to talk to them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. So, when you wrote on the answer to number two, where it says I have an attorney, but choose not to use him at this time, that is — is that what you said to the detectives?
A: Eventually, yes.
Q: You said that eventually?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. Well, are you saying that you said something else to them before you wrote this down?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And what was that?
A: That I did not want to talk to them.
Q: All right. And did you tell them that at the same time that you put down the answer to number two or at some other time?
A: I told them before I put down the answer.
Q: Before you put down the answer to number two?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And before you put down the answer to number one?
A: Before I put down the answer to number two.
Q: So, between your answer to number one and the answer to number two, you told [them] that you did not want to talk with them?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And then you went on and you put in the answers to the other questions on that first page, the Miranda rights?
A: I asked them to call my attorney and then my attorney didn't answer the phone. And I'm not sure which detective I was speaking to, but he showed me pictures at Motel 6 and he told me that he talked to a detective from Philly and they agreed to help me out to get a smaller sentence and if I don't cooperate he would make sure that that's not happening.
Tr. 2 at 97-99.
The fact that defendant did not testify regarding the request for his attorney on direct examination and that, on cross-examination, it took considerable prodding for defendant to eventually testify that he requested an attorney, convinces the Court that this testimony was not reliable. Thus, the Court does not credit defendant's testimony that he requested an attorney and will not suppress defendant's statement on these grounds. Additionally, although the defendant did not argue that Detectives Godby and Gehman violated defendant's Fifth Amendment by failing to respect his invocation of the right to silence, the Court concludes that, in any event, defendant's testimony regarding this issue was unreliable for the same reasons cited with regard to the Sixth Amendment issue.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence of defendant's May 17, 2002 statement to Philadelphia detectives and defendant's May 20, 2002 statement to Montgomery County detectives.
An appropriate order follows.