Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

-- Case 1 :O8—cr—OOOO7-SLR Document 17 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 1 of 4
_ ____ g U.S. Department of Justice I
—
United States Attorney ’s Ojice _ ‘
` · District of Delaware
A Nemours Buff. 'fng ` I
_ 1007 N Orange Street, Suite 700 (302) 573-62 77 _
_ ao. Box 2046 - FAX (302) 573-6220 :
‘ lldlmingzon, Delaware 19899-2046
- _ _ April 29, 2008 U _
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING n U i
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson ` l
United States District Judge A
‘ District of Delaware
. ` U.S. Courthouse . . l i
` 844 King Street _ U ` ,
" _ Wihnington, DE 19801 A ‘ A
Re: United States v. Ryan Evans I
Criminal Action No. 08-07-SLR . .
U Dear Judge Robinson: _ - -
- The Court has scheduled a Suppression Hearing in the above-referenced matter for April 30, `
. 2008 at 1:00 p.m. This letter provides background on the factual circumstances of the case, the
` issues that the Govemment understands the defendant will raise at the hearing, and a brief synopsis _
of the Govemment’s legal position regarding those issues. p
_ The defendant, Ryan Evans was arrested on January l0, 2008, at 428 South Jackson Street,
. ' Wilmington, Delaware. As the Officers were entering the residence, they heard a window open and
_- an object was thrown from the second floor of the residence. _ ,
. Upon contacting the defendant, Wilmington Police Detective Randolph Pfaff gave the-
_ defendant Miranda warnings. Detective Pfaff asked the defendant if there were any drugs or money F -
- in the home; the defendant responded in the negative. Detective Pfaff asked a second time if any
_ drugs or money were in the house. The defendant advised that he had approximately $1000 in the
_ home. The defendant then revealed the currency, hidden under the mattress, to the officer. Detective Q
Pfaff then inquired ofthe defendant as to what he threw out ofthe window. The defendant replied,
(Ca 9mm.?)
"·— Inside the residence, Officers located eighty—tive bags of heroin weighing 2.06 grams, $1453.00 I
- in cash, and other drug paraphernalia. In the alleyway outside of the home, the Officers located a
Walther P99, 9mm handgun loaded with fifteen 9mm Luger rounds.
` As a result of the investigation, the defendant was indicted with three criminal offenses: one `
. ‘ count of Possession with Intent to deliver Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(l) & (b)(1)(C); _
- U one cotmt of Possession of a Firearm in_Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 ‘ - _

Case 1:O8—cr—OOOO7-SLR Document 17 g Filed O4/29/2008 Page 2 of 4
U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A); and one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(l) & 924(a)(2).
After reviewing the defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements and after conferring with
l _ defense counsel, the Government understands that the defendant will argue either (1) that the
defendant was never advised of his Miranda rights prior to being questioned by law enforcement
officials; or, in the alternative, (2) that any statement given by the defendant was not "knowing,
intelligent, or voluntary." See Motion to Suppress (Mar. 14, 2008) at {[5. The Govermnent will
demonstrate at the Suppression Hearing that, for the reasons discussed below, both of these
arguments should be denied.
First, the Government will present at least one witness who will testify that the defendant was
- given his Miranda warnings prior to offering any statements that the Government intends to present
in its case-in-chief. The Government expects that this testimony will be sufficient to address the
_ - -defendant’s first assertion.
Assuming the Govermnent successfully rebuts the defendant’s first argument, the Government
expects the defendant to argue that his waiver of Miranda rights were not knowing, intelligent, or (
voluntary. It is the Govermnent’s burden of proving, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that the
defendant’s statements were made voluntarily. Colorado v. Connellbz, 479 U.S. 157, 168-70 (1986).
An evaluation of a purported waiver of Miranda rights involves a two-step analysis. First, the
Court must determine whether the waiver was a product of "a free and deliberate choice rather than
intimidation, coercion or deception." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). Second, the
Court must determine whether the waiver was made "with a full awareness of both the nature ofthe ‘
iight being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it." Id. In making these
determinations, the Court should review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
interrogation, including the background, experience, and conduct of the suspect. See Moran, 475
U.S. at 421; Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1046 (1983). It is well-established that a waiver
may be made expressly or may be implied from the defendant’s conduct. See North Carolina v.
Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); United States v. Cruz, 910 F.2d 1072, 1080 (3d Cir. 1990). ‘
The government expects the Officers testimony to touch on both the defendant’ s prior criminal
_ record, including numerous arrests and two state felony convictions and a federal gun possession »
conviction; as well as his conduct after he consented to speak with the Officer. The Officer will
testify as to the defendant’s age, physical description, and attitude. Furthermore, the Officer is .
expected to testify that the defendant not only responded to the Officer’s questions, but showed the
officer where certain contraband was located. All of this testimony will show that, given the ._
- defendant’s background and experience along with his conduct in responding to the Officer’s
questions, the defendant was fully aware of his rights under Miranda and chose to abandon those
rights. a
2 . ”

Case 1:O8—cr—OOOO7-SLR Document 17 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 3 of 4
- For the reasons set forth above, the Government requests that the Court, after the conclusion
of the Suppression Hearing, deny the defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
Yours very truly,
COLM F. CONNOLLY
United States Attorney
. BY;.
- Shawn E. Martyniak
Special Assistant United State Attorney
cc: Eleni Kousoulis via CM./ECF
3

Case 1:O8—cr—OOOO7-SLR Document 17 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 4 of 4 I
. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
, Plaintiff ` ) I
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 08-07-SLR
)
RYAN EVANS, )
)
__ Defendant. )
. )
ORDER l
After hearing testimony related to the defendanfs Motion to Suppress Statements on April 30,
2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendanfs motion is denied.
Dated:
Honorable Sue L. Robinson .
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SLR

Document 17

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SLR

Document 17

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SLR

Document 17

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SLR

Document 17

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 4 of 4