United States v. Zamora

Citations: 42 F. Supp. 3d 397; 2014 WL 4375738Docket: No. 8:13-CR-398

Court: District Court, N.D. New York; September 4, 2014; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On October 11, 2013, a seven-count indictment was filed against Esau Zamora, Gonzalo Reyes, and Manuel Zamora Rivas in the Northern District of New York, charging them with federal crimes, including Zamora's six counts of bringing illegal aliens into the U.S. (Counts 1-6) and all three defendants' involvement in transporting aliens within the U.S. (Count 7). Reyes and Zamora Rivas pleaded guilty to Count 7 in January 2014 and received sentences of time served.

Zamora filed a motion to suppress statements made to U.S. Border Patrol agents on July 15, 2013, and sought to preclude the video deposition of Victor Mejia Hernandez and evidence of his prior convictions. The Government opposed the motion. A suppression hearing occurred on August 22, 2014, where Agents James Northrop and Dustin Judd testified, but Zamora did not call any witnesses, and the decision was reserved.

Factual findings revealed that on the night of July 14, 2013, Agent Judd responded to a motion sensor near Churubusco, NY, and Agent Northrop stopped a van driven by Reyes with Zamora as a passenger, containing six undocumented immigrants. All individuals were arrested. During his detention, Zamora requested to speak with a supervisor and, after being told one was unavailable, stated he wanted to "take the rap" for the crime without having been read his Miranda rights. This statement was not included in Northrop's arrest report. At the USBP station, Zamora was read his Miranda rights, acknowledged understanding them, but initially declined to continue speaking without an attorney, although he later continued to engage with Agent Judd regarding the incident.

Zamora, while refusing to sign a waiver, engaged in conversation with Agent Judd about his criminal involvement, providing incriminating statements, including a declaration of guilt and admission of manipulation of others. After a thirty-minute interview, he expressed fatigue, prompting its conclusion at 4:15 a.m. Approximately thirty minutes later, Zamora returned to request to review the agent's notes, expressing dissatisfaction with their portrayal of him. Agent Judd did not reissue Miranda warnings during this interaction and did not document it.

Zamora contends that his statements made to USBP agents on July 15, 2013, should be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda warnings or a valid waiver of rights. The Government argues that Zamora's pre-Miranda statement was spontaneous and not the result of interrogation, hence admissible. The legal framework indicates that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against both formal and informal compulsion during in-custody questioning. Custodial interrogation includes both direct questioning and actions likely to elicit incriminating responses. While police may listen to volunteered statements without violating the Fifth Amendment, Zamora was in custody when he called for a supervisor, and his incriminating statement followed a prompt from Agent Northrop after his repeated request. The agents did not anticipate such a statement, expecting complaints about his treatment instead, and the lack of discomfort from Zamora suggests that the agents could have concluded the interaction after his initial request.

Agents had the option to inform Zamora that no supervisor was available or to read him his Miranda rights. Zamora's repeated requests for a supervisor indicated a desire to discuss the crime rather than simply file a complaint, contrasting with the spontaneous statements in Muniz, where the defendant's remarks were made in a scripted context. In Zamora's case, Agent Northrop prompted him to articulate his request for a supervisor, which led to pre-Miranda statements that were likely to elicit incriminating responses. Consequently, the court will grant Zamora's motion to suppress these statements.

Regarding post-Miranda statements, the Government argued that Zamora's refusal to sign a waiver did not negate the voluntary nature of his statements, citing his history with law enforcement as indicative of an implied waiver. The court requires the Government to demonstrate the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of evidence, examining the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's characteristics and the interrogation conditions. Factors influencing the waiver inquiry include the defendant's experience, age, and the absence of coercive police conduct. 

Zamora acknowledged his rights by signing the INS Form 214 but declined to sign the waiver section. Despite this, he voluntarily continued speaking without invoking his rights and did not show signs of coercion during a brief, unrestrained interview. Given his substantial prior interactions with the criminal justice system, the court concluded that he understood his rights and voluntarily waived them, leading to the denial of his motion to suppress the post-Miranda statements made during the interview.

Zamora's pre-Miranda statement to Agent Northrop, made during his arrest, is ruled inadmissible as it was elicited through questioning that likely led to an incriminating response, necessitating its suppression. In contrast, his post-Miranda statements made to Agent Judd at the USBP station are deemed admissible since they were given voluntarily after he knowingly waived his rights. The court has partially granted and partially denied Zamora's motion to suppress, specifically suppressing the pre-Miranda statement while allowing the post-Miranda statements to be used at trial. 

The court scheduled jury selection for October 14, 2014, in Utica, New York. The Government must provide the defense with a list of prior bad acts or convictions intended for use during cross-examination and notify whether witness Victor Mejia Hernandez will testify in person or via video deposition by September 30, 2014. Pre-trial submissions are due by noon on October 6, 2014. 

Zamora's request for a formal order to compel the Government to produce Giglio and Brady materials is deemed unnecessary as these obligations are already outlined in existing orders and rules. The Government has indicated that it plans to use the video deposition of Mr. Mejia Hernandez only if he cannot testify in person, and it does not intend to introduce evidence of Zamora’s criminal history during its case-in-chief. The Assistant United States Attorney noted the USBP station's lack of recording capabilities for interviews, which raises concerns about recording procedures for interrogations in 2014. The court acknowledged some ambiguity regarding Zamora's intent to delay signing the waiver but found it irrelevant given his subsequent choice to continue speaking with Agent Judd.