Filed: Patrick Fisher

F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
APR 21 2003
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT A. BLYTHE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRENT FATKIN, Warden;
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
No. 02-6097
(D.C. No. 00-CV-2103-F)
(W.D. Okla.)
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Robert A. Blythe appeals the district courts denial of his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. We affirm the
district courts denial of relief on petitioners claim that the admission of
inculpatory remarks made to a city polygraph examiner deprived him of his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment rights, and deny a certificate of appealability on
petitioners remaining issues.
Petitioner is currently serving consecutive sentences resulting from his
Oklahoma state convictions for first degree rape on a child under the age of
fourteen, lewd molestation of a child under the age of sixteen, and forcible oral
sodomy on a child under the age of sixteen. The convictions arose out of his
stepdaughters allegations that petitioner sexually molested her on multiple
occasions when she was eleven years old.
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, raising the following issues: (1) the statute of limitations barred
prosecution for lewd molestation and sodomy; (2) the prosecution or jury should
have been required to elect particular incidents of lewd molestation and sodomy;
(3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by admitting inculpatory
statements made during an interrogation without counsel; (5) his Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were denied by denying the discovery and
-2-
admission of agency records on the victim and by prohibiting petitioner from

recalling the victim as a witness; (6) the prosecutions closing statement
amounted to prosecutorial misconduct; (7) the alleged errors together violated his
right to a fair trial; and (8) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.
In August 1999, the state appellate court affirmed petitioners convictions, and in
September 1999, the court denied his petition for rehearing.
Petitioner brought this habeas petition in the federal district court, raising
the same eight issues. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred
recommended denying habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) petitioner was
prosecuted within the period allowed under state law and he did not show a
constitutional violation based on undue prejudice or intentional delay;
(2) petitioner had no federal constitutional right to an election of offenses, and
the state courts interpretation of its statute and constitutional provisions did not
violate due process; (3) the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact
to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the crimes for which
petitioner was convicted; (4) petitioners Sixth Amendment right to counsel was
not violated by the pre-polygraph questioning because he had not been charged
with a crime, and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because he
voluntarily consented to the polygraph, waiving his rights under Miranda v.
Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966); (5) petitioners constitutional rights were not
-3-
violated by the exclusion of evidence because there was no showing that any
agency records were withheld or ruled inadmissible, and the trial courts refusal
to recall the victim for inquiry into a collateral matter did not make the trial
fundamentally unfair; (6) although the state court held that several of the
prosecutions remarks were improper, the remarks did not deprive petitioner of
due process when viewed in the context of the entire trial, the jury instructions,
and the strong evidence of guilt; (7) because petitioners individual claims of
constitutional error failed, there was no cumulative error; and (8) petitioner did
not show that his attorney was ineffective because counsels alleged errors were
strategic decisions made in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, with
no showing of prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judges
recommendation and denied relief. Petitioner appeals the resolution of all
eight issues.
Before we may review his claims, petitioner must obtain a certificate of
appealability as to each of his issues by making a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). This standard is met by
demonstrating that his issues are debatable among jurists, subject to a different
resolution on appeal, or deserve further proceedings.
See Slack v. McDaniel ,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). On July 24, 2002, we granted a certificate of
appealability on the issue of whether petitioner was deprived of due process or the
-4-
right to counsel when he was interrogated by a polygraph examiner outside

the presence of counsel, in light of an agreement by the investigating detective
that she would not question petitioner after his polygraph examination without
counsel.
The undisputed facts are as follows. In March 1997, Detective Campbell
asked to meet with petitioner to discuss the victims allegations of sexual
molestation. Petitioner brought his attorney to the meeting. The parties agreed
that petitioner would return in a few days to take a polygraph examination. Aplt.
App. at 308. To avoid skewing the results, the parties agreed that neither counsel
nor the detective would be present at the polygraph exam. Id. at 308-09.
Detective Campbell agreed that she would not interview petitioner after the exam
unless counsel was present. Id.
On March 13, 1997, petitioner returned to the police department. Detective
Campbell escorted petitioner to the polygraph examiners office and explained the
allegations that had been made against petitioner. After the detective left the
room, the polygraph examiner advised petitioner of his Miranda rights and
obtained a written waiver. Id. at 304-05. The examiner went through a personal
history questionnaire with petitioner and then began discussing the allegations
which would be the subject of the polygraph exam. According to the examiner, in
response to a question whether there was anything that could bother petitioner
-5-
about the allegations, such as contact with the victim that went beyond normal
horseplay,
[petitioner] related to [the examiner] that [the victim] was around
twelve years of age and that she would sometimes wear a short
T-shirt with nothing else on. And he said he would sometimes below
[sic] on her bare stomach. He stated it was possible and probable
that on occasion his lips could have touched her bare vagina.
He also stated it was possible and probable and [sic] occasion
his tongue at the same time could have penetrated her vagina. He
stated that sometimes around this same age period [the victim] would
jump in bed with him wearing the same type of T-shirt, and they
would wrestle around and that it was possible and probable that his
penis could have touched her bare vagina.
Id. at 317.
At this point the examiner determined that he could not give petitioner the
polygraph test because petitioner had admitted skin-to-skin contact and thus no
suitable questions could be framed. Id. at 310-11. The examiner continued to
question petitioner and then called Detective Campbell in to speak with petitioner.
Id. The examiner led petitioner through his previous statements before leaving
petitioner with the detective. Id. at 311. Counsel was not present at this time.
Although petitioner was permitted to leave the police station, he was arrested and
charged several days later.
Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the statements made to the polygraph
examiner and to Detective Campbell. The state court conducted a hearing on the
motion during trial. Because Detective Campbell was not available to testify at
-6-
the trial, the court simply accepted that the agreement existed and suppressed her
testimony. Id. at 313. The court also ensured that the polygraph examiners
testimony related only to statements made to him before he called Detective
Campbell. Id. at 310-12. Ruling that the examiners questions to petitioner were
part of a standard pretest interview within the scope of petitioners waiver of
his Miranda rights, the court allowed the examiner to testify. Id. at 313-14.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, holding that [petitioners]
statement was voluntary and properly admitted as part of the agreed-to polygraph
examination. Id. at 28.
Petitioner argues that allowing the examiners testimony about statements
he made without counsel violated his federal constitutional rights. The habeas
statute dictates the nature and extent of our review of petitioners convictions.
See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Where, as here, the state court has decided petitioners
claims on the merits, we may grant habeas relief only if the state adjudication
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States, 2254(d)(1); or (2) resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of evidence presented
in the State court proceeding, 2254(d)(2).
-7-
Petitioner first argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was
violated when he was questioned by the polygraph examiner without his attorney
being present. Petitioner, however, had not yet been charged with a crime. The
Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until the initiation of
adversary judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge,
preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. United States v.
Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 (1984) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689
(1972)). Thus petitioner was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights, and the
state courts rejection of this argument was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law.
Petitioner argues next that allowing the examiner to question him before
administering the polygraph violated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and
his right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court has declared that an
accused has a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present
during custodial interrogation.
Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981).
Further, once an accused has invoked this right, the police may not initiate further
interrogation without counsel.
Id. at 484-85. The accused may waive his
previously invoked right to counsel, however, particularly if he initiates the

conversation.
Id. at 485-86 & n.9.
-8-
Here, petitioner contends that he invoked his right to counsel when he first
met with Detective Campbell, and therefore the polygraph examiner violated his
Fifth Amendment rights by interrogating him about the sexual molestation
charges. This challenge may be answered in two ways. First, because it is
undisputed that petitioner was free to come and go, he was not in custody, and
thus the prophylactic Fifth Amendment cases such as
Edwards do not apply. See
id. at 484-85 (deciding only that its protections are available for an accused
subjected to custodial interrogation);
California v. Beheler , 463 U.S. 1121,
1121-22, 1125 & n.3 (1983) (holding uncharged suspect who voluntarily came to
the police station for interview and then was allowed to leave was not in
custody so as to require
Miranda protections).
Second, even if Edwards applies, it is clear that petitioner initiated

further dialogue with the police when [he] and his counsel agreed that [he]
should take the polygraph examination, and [he] appeared voluntarily and stated
that he did not want counsel present during the interrogation.
Wyrick v. Fields ,
459 U.S. 42, 46 (1982). The only question is whether petitioners waiver of his
Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent was valid, that is, whether
it was knowing and intelligent . . . under the totality of the circumstances,
including the necessary fact that the accused, not the police, reopened the
dialogue. Id. at 46 (quotation omitted).
-9-
Petitioner clearly and unequivocally waived his Fifth Amendment rights for
purposes of the polygraph examination. Further, he does not dispute the state
courts finding that the pre-test interview was a standard part of the polygraph
examination. Although petitioner was not attached to the polygraph machine
when he made his statements, this does not make his waiver involuntary.
See id.
at 47-49 & n.* (holding that lack of a physical connection to polygraph equipment
did not affect suspects knowledge of his rights or voluntariness of his waiver,
especially when same question could have been asked during the polygraph exam
and answer would have been admissible as evidence). Because petitioner has not
shown that his waiver was invalid, the state courts decision that admission of the
polygraph examiners testimony
was constitutionally sound was not contrary to or
an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 1

Finally, petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability on his remaining
issues. After carefully reviewing the parties briefs and the record, we conclude,
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court,
that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
Contrary to petitioners argument, the Supreme Courts decision in
Minnick
v. Mississippi , 498 U.S. 146 (1990) does not affect this case.
Minnick involved
a custodial interrogation initiated by police against the defendants will.
Id. at 147-49. The decision relied heavily on the coerciveness of custody in
assessing whether the defendants Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
Id.
at 150-54. In contrast, here we are faced with a consensual, noncustodial
interrogation initiated by petitioner.
1
-10-
a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). We therefore deny his

application for a certificate of appealability on his remaining issues, and dismiss
the appeal as to those issues.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-11-

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F I L E D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

admission of agency records on the victim and by prohibiting petitioner from

See Slack v. McDaniel ,

right to counsel when he was interrogated by a polygraph examiner outside

Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981).

Id. at 484-85. The accused may waive his

previously invoked right to counsel, however, particularly if he initiates the

Id. at 485-86 & n.9.

Edwards do not apply. See

California v. Beheler , 463 U.S. 1121,

Second, even if Edwards applies, it is clear that petitioner initiated

was constitutionally sound was not contrary to or

an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 1

a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). We therefore deny his

You might also like