CAPUTO V. NELSON 455 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

CAPUTO V. NELSON

455 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Caputo (P), inmate, appealed from the United States District Court, which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After P appealed, the district court issued a certificate of appealability, limiting the appeal to P's claim that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated when his statements were introduced at trial.

FACTS: Police officers were dispatched to a second-floor apartment where they found the bodies of P's estranged wife and mother-in-law. P's wife had been stabbed twenty-two times, his mother-in-law seventeen times. P's two young daughters, who were unharmed, were also found in the apartment. Police discovered that the telephone wires to the apartment had been cut. There was no sign of forced entry. On the dining room table, the police found a protective order dated July 31, 1989, ordering P to refrain from abusing his wife and to stay away from the apartment. Six Plymouth police officers went to P's house. P opened the front door after the officers repeatedly knocked on the front and rear doors. P allowed them into his home. P was read his rights under Miranda. P said that he thought it best if he said nothing further. The officers immediately stopped all questioning but were not asked to leave the house. Police asked to use P's telephone to call the police station. P agreed. Police examined the automobile parked in P's driveway. The vehicle matched the description given to the Plymouth police. The hood was warm to the touch, and a registration plate with a number other than P's registration number covered the automobile's assigned registration plate. It was later learned that the outer registration plate had been stolen from a vehicle in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston. Police again asked whether they could use P's telephone to again call the Plymouth police station. P heard the officer tell others that P's automobile was warm, and that there were two different registration plates on the automobile. P then proceeded to tell the officers that two men kidnapped him after forcing their way into his home the night before and that he later awoke 'in a daze' in the Braintree area wearing only his underwear. The officers did not ask any questions in response to P's unelicited statements. P agreed to accompany the officers to the Plymouth police station. P was once more advised of his Miranda rights. P was asked if he wanted to speak with the officers and P was conflicted. P was again informed of his Miranda rights, and asked if he wished to speak to the police. P began to elaborate on the statement he had previously made in his home. P told the officers that he remembered having blood on him, throwing an object out of his automobile, and, at some point during the night, being outside his mother-in-law's home. When asked whether he had anything to do with the murders, P became upset and stopped talking. P asked to leave the police station but was informed that he was under arrest. Police executed a search warrant at P's residence. They recovered a knife set from which one knife was missing. A pair of 'tin snips' capable of cutting telephone wires was found in P's automobile. P was indicted for the first-degree murders of his wife and mother-in-law. P moved to suppress the statements that he made at his home and at the police station. The judge denied the motion because P knowingly waived his Miranda rights before he voluntarily answered police questions. D was sentenced to life. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected P's claims on appeal. P then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court entered judgment for D on December 5, 2005, and this timely appeal followed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner