# Petition — Fields v. Wyrick > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1636%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 464 U.S. 1020 ## Text SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEL ’ Seteober Term, 1983 EDWARD FIELDS, Plaintiff-Petiti wer, > NA . wYPRicr Warder Missour tate Fenitenttar ele ant-Rerponc ont MOT \ , EAVE 7 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS anc PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY E. HARTNETT BARTLEY. GOFFSTEIN, BOLLATO & LANGE 13 South Bemiston Avenue Suite 604 ‘ St. Louis, Missouri 63105 314/727-0922 Attorneys for Plaintif{-Petitioner ' In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1983 EDWARD FIELDS. Plaintif{-Petitioner. vs. DONALD W. WYRICK, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary. Defendant-Respondent. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Pursuant to Rule 4S of the Rules of this Court, Petitioner Edward Fields moves the Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to file the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorart without payment of fees and costs, and in support thereof states as follows: 1. On May 23, 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed « denial of Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief. 2. The said judgment is in error and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, ail as more particularly appears from the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed herewith. 3. Petitioner is unable to pay the costs and fees of this proceeding or to give s _ =. ; 5S. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was sought wy | Petitioner and granted at the District Court level, and on appeal to the . United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At that time, the 3 Court of Appeals appointed counsel. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was not thereafter sought in any court prior to the present motion. ’ WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that he be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and to file the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit without prepayment of costs, and for such other relief as to the Court shall seem just. Dated July Li » 1983. Respectfully submitted, BARTLEY, GOFFSTEIN, BOLLATO & LANGE Clayton, Missouri 314/727-0922 Attorneys for Petitioner ! QUESTION PRESENTED On September 25, 1974, Edward Fields was arrested, given his Miranda rights, and charged with rape. Fields was subsequently released on his own recognizance and retained counsel. More than two months later, Fields submitted to «4 polygraph examination at which his attorney was not present. Immediately prior to the polygraph, Fields was advised of his rights, and was told he could stop answering questions at any time of speak to his lawyer. He agreed to submit to the polygraph without presence of counsel. During the polygraph examine- tion. one or more of Fields’ answers indicated deceit. Following the examination, when the polygraph equipment hac been detached, Fields was asked to explain the evidence of deceit. No Miranda warning was given at this time, anc Fields proceeded to make a statement to the examiner which wes later used against him at tria:, leading to his conviction. The question presented in this Petition ts whether Fields’ right to counse, under the Sixth Amendment was violated when the government agents continued to interrogate him without counsel, beyond the polygraph examination to which he head agreed. Motion For Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis i Questions Presented I Table of Authorities itl Cases 1tl Constitutional Provisions itt Statutes Il Opinions Below j jurisdictional Statement 2 Constitutional Provision 3 Statement of the Case 3 Reasons For Granting the Writ é Appendices A. Opinion entered May 23, 1963, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit A-} B. Opinion entered November 29, ‘%e, Supreme Court of the United States A-7 C. Opinion entered April 23, 1982. United States Court of Appea for the Eighth Circuit A-2\ D. Order issued on February 13. 191, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. Eastern Division A-é2 E. Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate issued December 16, 1960, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division A-é3 F. Order entered May 28, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, for the Eighth Circuit A-49 itl TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brewer v. Williems, 430 U.S. 3867, 97 $.Ct. 1232. . . . ‘ivi? Fields v. State of Missouri, 572 $.W.2d 477 (Mo.App. $.D. 198 Fields v. State of Missouri, 596 $.W.2d 776 (Mo.App., 5.D. 1960 Fields v. Wyrick, 682 F.2d i54 (8th Cir. 1982 Fields v. Wyrick, No. 81-1245 (8th Cir... May 23, 1983 Henry v. Dees, 658 F.2d 406 (Sth Cir. 198) Kirb . lllinmois. KAR U.S. 682, ws 3S. t. 1877. "e ” — ’ Z - ~_ Massiah v. United States. 4% L.EC. OBZ (195 Miranda v. Arizona, 38 y” * el -_ United States Court of Appeals Pere Theh be eet No. 81-124 Edward Fields, . . Appellant, . . v. . Appeal from the United States ° District Court for the Donald Wyrick, ° Eastern District of Missouri! . . Appellee. Submitted: January 3, 1987 Filed; May 23, 198% _— ee oe ee Before LAY, Chief Judge, MEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges. ROSS, Circuit Judge. This case is once again before the court for consideration of the issue of the sdmiasihbility of an inculpatory statement made by petitioner during post-polyaraph test interrogation conducted in the absence of petitioner's counsel. For oresent Purposes only a brief outline of the relevant factual and procecural history is necessary, ee ee ee ee eee —o—-— « lPor @ more thorcouan discussion of the facts and history of this case, see Pacis ¥; meee. 682 F.24 154 (Bth Cir.), rev'd per curiam, 103 &.Ct, { 2). Petitioner Edward Pields, then a soldier in the United States Army, was arrested on Septeaber 25, 1974, and charged with the rape of an eighty-one year old woman. At the time of his arrest he was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Acizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), including the right to have counsel present Guring any interrogation. Upon the advice of counsel, Pields requested a polygraph examination which was conducted on December 24, 1974. Fields’ counsel was not present during the @xamination. Prior to administerina the polygraph, a government agent gave Fields a written consent document, which Pields signed, informing him of his Miranda rights, and of his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the eighth amendment. In addition, the agent read to Fields a detailed statement of his rights, specifically advising him that he had the right to have an attorney present during the questioning and that: “If you are now going to discuss the offense under investigation, which is rape, with or without a lawyer present, you have a right to stop answering questions at any time or speak to @ lawyer before answering further, even if you sign a waiver Certificate.* State v. Pields, $38 S.W.24 348, 350 n.l (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). When asked if he wanted a lawyer at that time, Pields responde!t, *No.* 14. After the Polygraph examination was complete, the government agent advised Pields that the test indicated some deceit and asked him if he could explain why some of his anawers were bothering him. Fields then admitted having consensual sexual intercourse with the woman on the day of the alleged rape. After being again advised of his Miranda cights, Fields repeated this confession to police officers. On March 13, 1975, petitioner was convicted by a jury of rape. Fields’ subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1976). alleging, inter alia, that his conviction was based upon an involuntary confession, was denied by the district court. The majority of a panel of this court -2?- reversed the district court on the grounds that evidence which was used to convict Picelds was oocuined in violation of his right under the fifth amendment to have counsel present at the interrogation. Pields v. Wyrick, 682 F.24 154 (6th Circ. 1982). Specifically, the majority concluded that the governaent had failed to prove that Fields “knowingly and intelligently waived his right to have counsel present st the post-test interrogation.” Id. at 160. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed and remanded to this court. Wyrick v. Fieids, 103 S.Ct. 394 (1982) (Per Curiam). On remand the Court apparently left open the issue of whether the post-polygraph interrogation violated petitioner's sixth amendment right to counsel. See id. at 397; id. at 400 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Having granted petitioner's request tc consider the sixth amendment issue, and having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs concerning this issue, we now hold that petitioner validly waived his sixth emendment right ft have counsel present et the post-examination interrogation. Consequently, we conclude that Fields’ incriminating statesent was voluntary and was properly admitted at his trial. We recognize that the fifth and sixth amendment rights to counsel may apply in different contexts and have different purposes. See, ¢.g., Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 4860 n.7 (1981); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 n.4 (1980); United States v. Surridge, 687 F.2d 2£0, 253 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 465 (1982). We also acknowledge that in some ciccumstances a waiver of fifth amendment rights may not constitute a waiver of the sixth amendment right to counsel. Wyrick v. Pields, supra, 103 S.Ct. 400 (Marshali, J., dissenting). See, e.g., United States v. Mohabir, 624 F.24 1140, 1147-48 (24 Cir. 1980). However, in the contex’ of the instant case where the defendant had previously invoked his right to counsel, it is relatively clear that the validity of any subsequent waiver of either the fifth or sixth amendment right to -~}- counsel is judged by essentially the same standard. To prove a w.ver the government must stow that uncer the particular facts and circumstances of the case there was a voluntary, Knowing and intelligent apandonment or relinquishment of a known cight or privilege.? See, ¢.9., Edwards v. Arizona, supra, 451 U.S. at 482 (fifth amendment right to counsel); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 367, 402 (1977) (sixth amendment right to counsel). Petitioner, relying heavily on Brewer v. Williams, Supra, argues that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated when the interrogation at the polygraph examination went beyond the scope of an “agreement® between appellant's counsel and law enforcement officers to limit the examination to questions Gesigned to revesl deceit. Petitioner maintains that any waiver of his right to counsel made prior to the polygraph examination must be viewed as limited to this portion of the examination, ani that he did not waive his cight to have counsel present during the post-test interrogation. 3 To substantiate his assertion 2we note that this is apparently the standard employed by the Supreme Court in concluding that Pields had validly waived his fifth amencwent cight to have counsel present st the post- test interrogation. See Wyrick v. Fields, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 395-96. 7In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the Court held that the defendant, Williams, had not waived his sixth amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation thet occurred while the defendant was being transported by authorities. The Court's conclusion that the ctate had failed to “prove ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandoment of a known right or privilege,'* substantially rested on the fact that an undisputed egreement existed between Williams’ counsel and the authoricies to the effect that no interrogation would take place during the trip, and that despite this fact the authorities deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Williams without advising him that he had a right to have a lawyer present and without any “effort at all to ascertain whether Williams wished to relinquish that right.” Id. at 404-05. It is relevant to note that the Court did state that it was not holding “that under the circumstances of this case, Williams cout: without notice to counsel, have waived his cights under t Sixth and Pourteenth Amendments." I4. at 405-06 (footnote omitted). -~4- concerning an agreement petitioner relies on a statement made by his counsel at the suppression hearing to the effect that it was counsel's and Pields' understanding that the request was only for @ polygraph to be run to show deceit or nondeceit for purposes of pretrial negotiations. We cannot agree with petitioner that this statement supports the existence of any “agreement* limiting the scope of the interrogation, and we believe that petitioner's argument in this cegard has already heen rejected by the Supreme Court: The Court of Appeals stated that there was no indication that Pieldc or his lawyer anticipated that Fields would be asked questions after the examination. But it would have been unreasonable for Fields and his attorneys to assume that Pields would not be informed of the polygraph readinss and asked to explain any unfavorable result. Moreover, Pields had been informed that he could stop the questioning at any time, and could request at any time thet his lawyer join him. Merely disconnecting the polygraph equipment could not remove this knowledge from Fields’ mind. Wyrick v. Pields, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 396 (footnote omitted). The rccord in this cace discloses that Fields not only initiated a conversation with the authorities, but that “[bly requesting a polygraph examination, he initiated interrogation.” Wyrick v. Fields, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 396. Moreover, there is clear evidence that Pields was fully informed and understood prior to the examination that he had a right to have counsel present at the interrogetion, to stop answerina questions and to speak to an attorney at any time, and that he expressly waived those rights pricr to the interrogation. Under these particular facts and circumstances, we must conclude that petitioner voluntarily, intelligently, knowingly and inte:..ionally relinquished his sixth amendment right to have counsel present at the post-test questioning. Accordinaly, we - 4 See Wyrick v. Pields, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 396; Fields v. Wyrick, supra, 682 F.2d at 162 (Ross, J., dissenting). =~ afficm the decision of the district court cenying Pields' petition fer habeas corpus relief.° A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPCALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. SPields has raised several other claias on his a al from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, including challenges based on ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury selection, and lack of probable cause supporting the arrest warrant. After thorough consideration, we find these claims to be without merit. Bef PeeRTE [PH in i, iH al H il 7 eh Daal aed a z% a Uys dF li fi 5 af ans ~ ARE Eat alittgs il HH fet ae g 28 3% F act i pegs iy SC tine i a33 Syausegte2ePes? PURER HER | iif Fee en tH ieee A eis Liethetitit ait ant hay al His Gh ae fi ava, bs an ESPTEERS aga peels it ) See also id, ot 161 & 12 (retying om Brewer +. Williams, 0 U.S. SAT (1977), 2 Sixth Amendme | case) It is noteworthy thet the Magistrate, whose re- port the District Court adepted. pounted to the Sixth Amendment probiem by observing that it @ “s somewhat empty gesture to appotnt an attorney for an accused _ . and then pursue an interrogation. . . without his attor- ney.” In addition, the petition for certiorari asserts that the decision below “expands the rights guaranteed an accused during interrogation ander the Fitth end Sisth Amendments.” Petition for Certiorari at 7 (em- phames suppoed — In amy event, since the Court today construes the Court of Appeals’ optn- jon as resting solely on the Fuh Amendment. the Sirth Amendment seve remains open on remand Al? WYRICK « FIELDS acum tame before decid- oo Mosley, as in the re- are ae ee 41 U.S, a the privilege from coerc- ose. 3 con- Tes ene a valid « differ- we eres. cout eS on ni ais, Hie E £58 3 i eli ay Hit E : hy Hel A-I8 ——— oe — - — — WTYRICK « FIELDS s U. S. 4, 57 (1982). To give effect to this protection, this Court has insisted that the State deal with a defendant forts to elicit information from him in the absence of coun- sel, regardless of whether he is in custody, see [United States v. Henry, 47 U. S. 264, 273-274 n. 11 (1980); Masnick v. United States, rupra, and regardless of whether the tech- nique used tc extract information is in any way coercive, see McLeed ¥. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356 (1985). fendant intelhgently and knowingly relinqushed his right not “a « — ss —_ —- —— - - _ when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has sttached."” Usted Sta'es v. Mohabir, 624 F. 2d 1140, 1147 (CA2 1980), quoting Uvrated v. Massimo, 432 F. 2d 324, 327 (CA2 1970) (Friemity, J., dissenting) (majority did not reach the issue), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 1022 (1971). Today's decision there- *See Unsted States ex rel O'Connor v. New Jerecy, 5 F. Od G32. (CAT), cert. denied, 996 U. S. 923 (1989) Hancock + White, 378 F. 2d b F. —— a —— Al arpennix 9 C UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 81.1245 EDWARD FIELDS, » Appeal from the Appellant, | United States Dis | triet Court for the sr Eastern District of DONALD WYRICK, Missour: A ppetler j Sobmitted: September 17, 1991 ted: April 2, 1992 Before LAY. Chief Jadge, and HE ANEY and ROSS, Cir eat Judges HEANBEY, Cirruit Judge. Edvard Fields appeals from the district court's denial! of his petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 2 US.C ¢ 22. We reverse the lower court on the ground that Fields’ state court conviction was oj tained as a reewilt of his involuntary confession. Federal habeas corpus relief, therefore. should have been granted. Fields, a soldier then stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, was charged with raping a Waynesville, Missoor) woman on September 21, 1974. He was convicted br a jinry on A-al — 7 e J ; s 4 - _ - a so % ; \ a > , : . & . - = — _ ~ ~ - . - 5 — = 7 he ii » - + : : = — = ~ - —— = a oe - ~ = & “ - ~ = a c : - 7 A . . - — . , e . e _ 7 - c ~ ’ > ~ = - —_. = - - - - . -- — ee ———_———_— —— ae Ad eel as wet invited to be present, nor was he informed that the text wonk! he given that dar Before the pol ray camination wae given, Fiekle wae alviert? that le had the rich? to remain silent and to hare an attornes preeent, at! he ehened a written form consenting to the et smnatior After the examination wane completed, Rowrne tald Fielkle that there ‘‘had heen same deceit’ awl ackesl hin if} hal «we exaplagation ae te wl hie ahewere Were hevthermwe him. Fickle threnmen «fated that he had had in termes with the cretim on Sentomher 81, 1974, let that she lowl tnetient-~!l aml eonsented te the eantact. Reurne them wehkeel Piehl« if he wicher! te slieewee the matter far ther with anather CTD agent, Charlee Pann. and the Warnescille Chief of Police, Jom did nat preserve onething for appellate review, hat went on te betefly * cometder Prelbe” comet toetrerneal eter mnebet a ‘plan error” stamlant Stete vr. Bielde, capra, 0s SWAN at 349-0. The court concluded that the motien te eapporess ware property denied’ heramse rletondant had heer repeatedly and amply advised of his rieht« fond) volo. tarile, knowingly and intelligently waiver! hie rights.” fi a ow. We are mindial of the Sepreme Court's recent ob munition that in fedora] hahens corpus proceedings the court must apply a presemption of correctness t) Jaetunl determinations inale bw the state courts, See Sumerr ¢ Mote. 0 1 Reb dd P22, TU C191), The appieatte statuty porernieles Phat thie °° petesneemypvtieen ef correctness” apples to a state court's “determination after a hearing on the merits of a fnetunl ieane © * * evidenced hy @ written fim! ing, written opinion, or other reliable and arleyuate writ: ten iwlicia.”’ 2s USC. | 224041), The presumption dow not. of course, attach to a state court's reselation of 4 question of federal law or to “a mixed determination of law rl fev that requires the application of legal prin- ciples to the historical facts of [a] ene.” Conder «, Salle — - Cuders Seleen HAUS WIS 142 1680 ee hewe eeted the trtel court did cet enter ov elention frewle - vel he epee” te commt merely peeviled «brief eoplicution of same ai the coowmtances heedieg ap te Fiedts crmifrscieen. Became we fie! thot we rmertiel the spew 's cement’ teed of the wtey af Cente 6 ines eitenst vt) cone crew tere hae the predperer o ar ! ‘ 5! ’ ; ‘ ‘ T - furr he reece! Nadewe the ind rie * _ pew al A-30 ~~ ee ree re A-ll examination The examiner, administering the examination without defendant's counsel that be bad “failed” and! asked! did be “‘want to tell me ahoat the thinc’"* The court cor claded that the inculpatory statements mare be the a fewlant in response to that topmry were pol, wmler totality of the crrenmeatances, treole aml ccruntaril: me! an, therefore, she ne bare heen enppressed Id at RN In refnsing to extend Henry's examination cansen’ te the post-test questioning, the Pitth Ciremt vot ol that “Cnleither Henrr nor his connec! contemplated that ¢! instruments ther sigma expereed Henry ft) onestrent which «as not an intevral nart of o polegraph expzaine tien.’ Pe. at 310, There i Irom Pieki« af the «xamination was ren. Fiells” lawyer stated’ at the «np presen hearing that he and the defendant only wanted a pels eranph te he run avel toat we le given 6 nit«."* trial peutintion.""* Agent Bourne, the poly zraph exam ner, dnl net attempt to «li ) . * A-15 Joknaon vc. Zerbat, 34 US. 458 464 (1938) However, accepting the basic facts presented in the majority enirion, it seems clear that Field« must he viewed as having waived his richts to have counsel present at the interrogation in accordance with this standard On September 25, 1974, when Fichls was arreste:! am! charged with the rape he was given hie Miraeda warning He admitted! in his «enppression hearing that he nnlerstonl the meaning of these right« when he atates! that **T wneler- stand it te be that T dieln’t bave te make an «tatement-, do anvthing without mv connec! present ©" Frekle there- rh preety eonentted? with beth orp ately reteine!? am! vilitar: cornsel, and consent! te a pols cranh examination Pricer te uadergeing the polygraph on December 4, 1974. Piette ere acoin folle advierd of bie right«e Tle ane given a al «iene! a written consent decument whieh ifornmed him of bi« rochte amler the Uniform Cele of Militars JV est jew uml the Bichth Amendment. In addition the agent rend the «lefemdant the following detailed _) Fiekls’ sixth daim i« another allegation conerrning ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to call one Don Batler, who was a codefemlant, ae a defense witness. At his third 27.26" hearing, his trial attorney testified that he was familiar with Fields’ eovlefendant, Don Butler, Ie further testified! that Butler wa« represented he another attorner, who wonk! net allow kim to testify in any «tage of the proceedings that Fields was involved in (Respond- ent’s Exhibit G-P®9). In view of hi« obvions effort to fol- low the directions of Ficlds in using Butler as a defense witness, his trial attorney could hardly he called ineffee- tive. **In this cirenit, the evaluation of a petition al- leging ineffective assistance of counsel involves a *Fidds ¢ Stete, 372 SW2d 477 SO Mo. 1978), is a bondemork case which decided that in all 27.26 metions, there shall he appetite! counwl. Fickls had’ appealed his prior 27.26 motion ruling because of his statement that he “didn't know or understand what could he raited on a 27.26 motion.” ° of oa AW two-step process Rrwchart © Brewee, Mil Pld io (Sth Cir, 1977). The petitioner mast first show that his attorney failel to exercise the ewetemary skill aml cilicenee that «a reasonable competent atterner woul] exereiee under similar ciremnstances, Urited Stetes + Easter, 3 Poll @ G6 (Sth Cir, 1976), eet dean d, 404 US. $446 C1077). Seeoml, the petitioner must demonstrate that he was materials prejredioed in the elefemse of hie case be the actions or inaetions of his counsel, Necets 6 Dercatt, 506 Pod 344 Sth Cr 1TO). Merce e Peceatt S74 F fd 40 o8th Cir, 1978); Riucheart ’ Live we _ wa pee Therefore, tt t« the eomelasion amd remo telhation of the reviewing Magistrate that Edword Piekls’ apphea- flew for feleral habeas corps be shenped) ecitheat farther prececlings The parties are hereby advised that trey have ten days from the serview of this recommendation within whieh to file objections to same, parsuant te JS ENC. 9656(¢b). William S. Dabe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE € Dated: December 16, 1080 ~~—<_ ee ee eee —— a. oe ; ‘ A3l APPENDIX D F WN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEV’TEMBER TERM, 1981 No. 81.1245 EDWARD FIELDS, A Appeal from he Appr law i nites! state o Dis. ve f treet Court for the DONALD WYRICK, | Kastern [istrict of Mieseur Appeller The Court, having considere:| Appellee’s petith for rehearing and sugcestions for rehearing en banc am! being now fully advised in the premises, hereby orders the pe- en hane tition for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing denied. Judges Rvs, Henley and John (ilbeon voted to grant the petition for rehearing en bane. May 28, 1982 ‘re --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1636%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.