Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
I
v. NO. 

REALITY LEIGH WINNER 
a?
1%



MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS 
- STATEMENTS AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant Reality Leigh
Winner (?Winner? or the ?defendant?) who respectfully files, pursuant to Rule of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the instant Memorandum in Support of her Motion to
Suppress Statements and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (the ?Motion to Suppress?). For the
reasons set forth below, this Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether statements made by Winner were elicited by law enforcement in Violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US. 436 (1966), and (ii) grant the Motion to Suppress.

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

On June 3, 2017, Winner came home to a scene she' had never witnessed. Within
minutes, ten armed male law enforcement agents appeared, equipped with search warrants for
Winner?s residence, car, and person, ready to take action on a ?report? they received regarding
alleged mishandling of classi?ed information. Although one of the search warrants was for
Winner?s ?person,? there were no female agents present to conduct that search. Two of the male

agents then escorted Winner to a back room?one she expressly advised she would rather not go

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 24

into and called ?creepy??and began questioning her while approximately eight armed law
enforcement agents began rummaging through the entirety of her house.

Winner was isolated during her questioning. In that small, unfurnished back room, she
sat with her back against a wall and with her two questioners in front of her, blocking her view
and path to the exit, a door that was nearly shut.

While being questioned about . her activities handling classi?ed information, law
enforcement never expressly advised Winner that she could leave, nor did they advise Winner
that she was under arrest. In fact, when Winner speci?cally asked whether she would be
arrested, her male questioners kept her in the dark, telling her they did not ?know the answer to
that It was clear that she was not free to leave, not only from the answer that the agents
gave her in response to her question of whether she would be arrested, but also because the
agents had not yet searched her person, and no female agents had appeared on the scene to
conduct that search.

At the conclusion of her interrogation, the search was still ongoing and Winner was
directed by law enforcement to wait in the front yard, and, after some time, they instructed her to
go into the fenced part of her yard. After hours of being detained at the scene, the all-male
contingent of agents ?nally called two female of?cers. But even those two female of?cers did
not search her at the scene. Rather, they formally arrested Winner and transported her to jail,
where they searched her for the ?rst time.

During the entirety of the two-plus hours that law enforcement was at her residence, law
enforcement never advised Winner of her Miranda rights and, given the circumstances, Winner
never believed she was free to leave or terminate her interrogation. Indeed, she believed quite
the opposite. The most sacred and constitutionally-protected place in her world?her home?

had been invaded (albeit legally) by law enforcement. The atmosphere could not have been
2

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 3 of 24

more ?police?dominated,? and, as set forth in more detail below, Winner?s freedom of movement
had not only been curtailed, it had been eliminated.

Because Winner was not read her Miranda rights prior to law enforcement questioning,
under the applicable precedent set forth below, any statements elicited by law enforcement from
Winner during the encounter must be suppressed, as should any evidence obtained as a result of
those statements. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, Winner requests that the Court grant
an evidentiary hearing to determine whether her statements were elicited in violation of Miranda
and grant the Motion to Suppress.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Within minutes of arriving home from the grocery store in the aftemoon of June 3rd of
2017, Winner was confronted with ten armed male law enforcement agents with search warrants
for her house, her car, and her person.1 After she moved her dog into her fenced yard,2 provided
law enforcement her car keys in reSponse to their request,3 confirmed for the agents what
?rearms were in her house, which she lawfully possessed,4 and assisted law enforcement with
her cell phone,5 two of the agents suggested they interview Winner in an unfurnished back room
in her house, a room Winner described to them as a ?weird? and ?creepy? room that she did not
like to go into.?3 Despite her characterization, agents escorted her there. The other eight agents
began rummaging through her house and her car, executing the search warrant?

After being escorted to the unfurnished back room, Winner sat with her back against the

wall. The two agents questioning her were in front of her, and they closed the door almost

 

1 (Winner Decl. ?l 3.)
2 (Id- ll5-)

3 (Id-l

40610

5 (Id)

6(1d. In 6.)

7 (Id. 1m 4, 8.)

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 4 of 24

entirely (they could not close it completely because there was an item hanging on the door
preventing it from fully closing).8 Given this arrangement, to reach the exit of this interrogation
room, Winner would have had to physically move through both agents.9

Once they were in the back room, Winner?s interrogators began making small talk with
her. They discussed her employment history, how she made her way to Augusta, her history in
the armed services, her workout regimen, and various physical injuries she had suffered.10 They
then reiterated the search warrants they had procured, showed her the warrant for her house, and
told her they would like to get her ?side of the story.?11 At that time, the agents speci?cally
advised that, in addition to search warrants for her house and car, they also had a search warrant
for Winner?s person.12 The agents, however, did not search Winner?s person at that time; indeed,
Winner was never searched until she got to jail later that day.13

The questioning then began focusing on Winner, with law enforcement advising they had
received a report that she had mishandled classified information.14 After a brief discussion of her
job, law enforcement pressed further, telling Winner that they ?know a lot more? than what they
were telling her, that ?telling a lie to an FBI agent? is not good, and that this was her
?Opportunity to tell the truth.?15 While still in the back room, agents then told her that they
were there ?voluntarily,? that She was talking to them voluntarily, and that law enforcement was

not ?forcing? her to do anything.16 Importantly, however, the agents never informed Winner she

 

a Ud- ll 7-)

9 (See id.)

10 (Id. 119.)
11 (Id. 1] 10.)
12 (Id)

13 (Id. 23.)
14 (Id. 1] ll.)
15 (Id. 1] 12.)
16 (See id.)

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 5 of 24

was free to leave, nor was she free to leave given, among other things, that the search of her
person had yet to be conducted.

Winner and law enforcement then had a discussion about an article that later appeared in
an online media outlet. The agents speci?cally told her she was a suspect in the alleged
mishandling of that document, expressly advising her that she was ?far and away? the ?most
likely candidate? to be their prime suspect, characterizing their evidence as ?compelling??7 The
agents then shared more evidence that they believed incriminated Winner: the fact that the
document was ?folded in half,? was post-marked from Augusta, and made its way to an online
Imedia outlet Winner purportedly subscribed to. 18

While still in that back room, agents then zeroed in, telling her they thought she ?made a
mistake?; that she had had a ?good career?; that if she was the culprit and did it because she was
angry at the current state of politics, then that idea would make law enforcement ?feel a little
better?, and that they ?[would not] have a real serious problem here.?19 After further discussion
regarding the document that later appeared in the online publication, including a discussion
about, among other things, whether the disclosure of that document Compromised national
security (which Winner denied),20 Winner specifically asked law enforcement if she was going to
jail.21 Signi?cantly, the agents answered that they did not know the answer to that question
?yet.?22 Several minutes later, law enforcement reiterated Winner?s uncertain status, telling her
they ?truly [didn?t] know? if she would be arrested and that they were ?going to have to make

some phone calls.?23 Her interrogation lasted approximately twenty-?ve minutes.24

 

17 (Id. 1113.)

18 (Id. 11 14.)

19 (Id. 1115.)

20 (See id. 16?17.)
21 (Id. 11 18.)

22 (Id)

23 (Id)

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 6 of 24

Law enforcement terminated the interview at that time, but Winner?s detention continued.
Agents instructed Winner to stand outside in her front yard, and then directed her to stand in the
fenced part of her yard with her dog.25 After female law enforcement agents ?nally arrived on

1.26 Winner was never advised of her

the scene, they arrested Winner and transported her to jai
Miranda rights at any point during her interrogation on'June 3rd.? She was never personally
searched pursuant to the warrant until she arrived at the jail.23

Given the arrival of ten male armed law enforcement agents at Winner?s home and the
restraints placed on Winner (6g, placing her in a back room with the exits blocked and a nearly-
shut door), and the fact that law enforcement of?cers never advised Winner she was ?free to
leave? but instead that she might be under arrest, and would, in any event, be subject to a search
of her person, which never occurred before Winner was escorted to jail, there can be no
conclusion other than that Winner never believed she free to leave or terminate the questioning.29
BECAUSE WINNER WAS SUBJECTED TO 

BUT WAS NOT ADVISED OF HER MIRANDA RIGHTS, ANY STATEMENTS

ELICITED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE 

A. Governing Law

The Fifth Aniendment to the United States Constitution provides that person . . .

shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against As such, ?the

prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from

 

2" (Id. ?l 19.)

25 (Id. ?l 20.)

26 (Id) .

27 (Id. 1H 5, 22.)

28 (See id. 1[ 23.)

29 (Id. 3, 4, 5, 24.)

30 Because the defendant has not yet received the recording of the custodial interrogation and only has a redacted
transcript of that interrogation, the defendant reserves the right to supplement this Motion to Suppress with
additional relevant information it receives from the Government.

3? U.S. CONST. amend. V.

6

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 7 of 24

custodial interrogation of defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self?incrimination.?32

Determining whether a defendant has been subjected to ?custodial interrogation? involves
two elements: (1) whether the suspect was in ?custody? and (2) whether the suSpect was
subjected to ?interrogation.? A person is in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings if she has
been subjected to ?a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated
with a formal arrest.?33 In essence, this ?custody? test asks whether, ?under the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonable man in his position would feel a restraint on his freedom of
movement to such an extent that he would not feel free to leave.?34 Importantly, the ?reasonable
person? standard is de?ned as a ?reasonable innocent person.?35 The test is an objective one, and
generally, the actual, subjective beliefs of the defendant and law enforcement are irrelevant?6

While the burden is initially on the defendant to establish a basis for suppression, when
she does so, the burden then shifts to the Government, which must establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that the statements were not the product of custodial interrogation conducted in

the absence of Miranda warnings?7 Custodial statements made in response to interrogation in

the absence of Miranda warnings are inadmissible.38

 

32 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 444 (1966).

33 United States v. Street, 472 F. 3d 1298,1309 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125
(1983)).

34 United States v. Brown, 44]. F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d
1354, 1362 (11th Cir. 2001)).

35 1d. (quotation omitted).

36 See Street, 472 F.3d at 1309 (citation omitted).

37 See Colorado 12. Connelly, 479 US. 157, 168?69 (1986); United States v. Matlock, 415 US. 164, 178 n.14
(1974)); see also UnitedStates v. Freeman, 61 F. Supp. 3d 534, 536 (ED. Va. 2014).

38 United States v. Todd, No. 2017 WL 1197849, at *14 (SD. Ga- Feb. 10, 2017).

7

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 8 of 24

B. Custodial Factors

The determination of whether a suspect is ?in custody? is a multi?factor balancing inquiry
based on the totality of the circumstances.? Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have speci?cally
considered the following non-exhaustive factors40 in this analysis: the location of the
questioning;41 whether the of?cers brandished weapons;42 (0) whether the law enforcement
touched the suspect;43 whether law enforcement used language or a tone that indicated that
compliance with the of?cers could be . compelled);44 whether law enforcement
?unambiguously advis[ed]? the suspect that she was free to leave and not in custody?5 the
duration of the questioning at statements made during the interview;47 whether
restraints were placed on the suspect during the questioning;48 and the release of the
interviewee at the end of the questioning.49

While these factors are useful, the Supreme Court has instructed that courts undertaking a
custody analysis must determine the entirety of the ?circumstances surrounding the
interrogation,?50 and should accordingly look ?at the broader setting?51 and obtain the ?broader

picture?52 of the scene.53 At this direction, courts have not only looked to the above factors, but

 

39 See, e. g, Brown, 441 F.3d at 1347 (quotation omitted).

40 See United States v. Miller, No. 2015 WL 13238641, at *4 (SD. Ga. Oct. 30, 2015) (noting that the
factors listed by the Supreme Court in the custodial analysis are non?exhaustive).

41 See id. at 1348. 

42 See Street, 472 F.3d at 1309 (citation omittedUnited States v. Matcovich, 522 F. App?x 850, 851 (11th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (citation. omitted); see also
United States 12. Robinson, No. 4: 2017 WL 3262417, at *3 (SD. Ga. July 14, 2017).

46 See id. (citing Howe v. Fields, 565 U-S. 499, 509 (2012)).

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 663 (2004) (quoting Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995)).

51 United States v. Freeman, 61 F. Supp. 3d 534, 544 (ED. Va. 2014).

52 United States v. Borostowski, 775 F.3d 851, 860 (7th Cir. 2014).

53 See State v. Mangual, 311 Conn. 182, 193 (Conn. 2014) (noting that ?the United States Supreme Court has
decline[d] to accord talismanic power to the freedom-of?movement inquiry[] and [has] instead asked the additional

8

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 9 of 24

have also evaluated the following additional list of non-exhaustive factors in making the custody
determination: (1) whether the questioning was voluntary;54 (2) whether the suspect was

separated from others during the questioning;55 (3) whether law enforcement had a search

warrant for the person of the SuSpect;56 (4) the number of law enforcement agents at the scene;57

(5) the physical characteristics of the interview location;58 and (6) the degree to which law

enforcement?s questioning focused on the suspect as a prime suSpect.59

C. Application of The Custodial Factors Dictate That Winner Was ?In
Custody? and Therefore Entitled to Miranda Warnings.

Again, determining whether a suspect was in custody is based on the ?totality of the

9760 9361

circumstances, and no single factor should ?sway the analysis. When one considers the
totality of the circumstances here by examining the factors outlined above, it is clear that
Winner?s statements were taken without supplying her the constitutionally?required Miranda
warnings. The Court should, therefore, suppress her statements, as well as any evidence

obtained from those statements.

 

question [of] whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station
house questioning at issue in Miranda? (citations omitted))-

54 See, e. Borostowslci, 775 F. 3d at 861?62 (citing Yarborougl?z v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004); California
v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983); United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.2d 943, 956 (7th Cir. 2012)).

55 See Borostowslci, 775 F.3d at 860, 862; United States v. Hashime, 734 F.3d 278, 284 (4th Cir. 2013); United
States v. Cavazos, 668 F.3d 190, 194 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1086?87 (9th Cir.
2008) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 445?46, 448); United States v. Revels, 510 F.3d 1269, 1275 (10th Cir. 2007).

56 See People v. Wilson, 268 Cal. App. 2d 581, 586 (Cal. Ct- App. 1968) (noting that search warrant authorized
search of suspect as factor in custody analysis); see also People v. Farris, 120 Cal. App. 3d 51, 56 (Cal. Ct. App.
1981) (same).

57 See, Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1078, 1085; Cavazos, 668 F.3d at 194; United States v. Mahmood, 415 F. Supp.
2d 13, 17?18 (D. Mass. 2006); Mangual, 311 Conn. at 201 (citing Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1085; Revels, 510 F.3d at
1270, 1277; United States v. Mittel?Carey, 493 F.3d 36, 39?40 (lst Cir. 2007)).

58 See Craighead, 539 F.3d at 108 8?89.

59 See Stansbtajv v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 325 (1994) (noting that an officer?s beliefs concerning suspect?s
culpability may be one of many factors in the custodial interrogation analysis if those words were manifested to the
suspect and would effect a reasonable person?s views on his or her ?eedom to leave); United States v. Mittel?Carey,
456 F. Supp. 2d 296, 308 (D. Mass. 2006) (citing United States v. Giz?tn, 922 F. 2d 1343,1348 (8th Cir. 1990)).

60 Brown, 441 F. 3d at 1347 (quotation omitted)

61 United States v. Colonna, 511 F. 3d 431, 436 (4th Cir. 2007) (reversing district court 5 judgment that defendant
was not in custody because the district court was swayed by the single factor that law enforcement told the suspect
he was not under arrest and did not arrest the suspect for two years).

9

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 ?Page 10 of 24

0 Winner Was Never Advised That She Was ?Free to Leave.? As the Eleventh Circuit
has emphasized, a ?powerful factor? is whether law enforcement ?unambiguously
advis[ed] . . . that [the suspect was] free to leave and [was] not in custody.?62 Plainly,
where law enforcement makes such a disclosure, it will ?generally lead to the conclusion
that the defendant is not in custody.?63

Here, Winner was not advised she was ?ee to leave.64 To the contrary, the agents

directed her movements prior to and during the execution of the search warrant, leading

any reasonable person to believe she was not free to leave. Put differently, Winner was

restricted in her freedom of movement. This factor, therefore, counsels in favor of a

?nding of custody.65

0 Winner Was Never Advised She Was ?Not Under Arrest.? Courts, including those
within the Eleventh Circuit, have looked closely at whether the suspect was advised she
was not under arrest.66 Indeed, the tactic of law enforcement to keep a detained suspect
?in the dar about his or her arrest status is far more likely to yield the pressures
Miranda warns of and hence, render the situation custodial.67 This is because where a
suspect is confused or unclear of her custodial status, ?she may feel compelled to submit
to police questioning for fear that her refusal to COOperate will reduce her chances for
release or other favorable treatment.?68

Here, Winner was never told that she was not under arrest. Instead, when she expressly
asked, ?Am I going to jail tonight?? agents told her, don?t know the answer to that
yet.?69 The importance of this answer cannot be overstated. ?Where a suspect has been
advised [an arrest will not be made], custody has frequently been found not to exist.?70
Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has termed this factor so ?powerful? and ?substantial? that,
where present, it requires the government to ?establish ?extensive? evidence? to overcome
a ?nding? that the interview was not custodial.71 Winner was not advised that she was
not under arrest. This factor therefore strongly cuts in favor of a finding of custody.

 

62 Matcovich, 522 F. App?x at 851 (quoting Brown, 441 F-3dat 1348 see Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1087?88; Mitre}?
Carey, 456 F- Supp. 2d at 307.

63 Marcovich, 522 F. App?x at 851 (citation omitted).

64 (Winner Decl. ii 5.)

65 (See, 6. g, Winner Decl. 111i 7, 20.). While Winner was advised she did not have to answer the agents? questions,
such a directive is materially different than being advised of the ultimately inquiry?whether she was free to leave.
Indeed, ?[t]he broader setting makes clear why a few isolated statements by law enforcement? in the course of. a
bigger operation ?cannot erase its custodial nature.? Hashime, 734 F-3d at 284. See also, Gri?in, 922 F.2d at
1354 (finding in-home interrogation custodial where, among other things, suspect was accompanied by of?cer to
retrieve cigarettes and was told to remain in View of agents at all times); MitteZ?Carey, 456 F. Supp. 2d at 307
(fmding in?home interrogation custodial where, among other things, suspect was directed where to sit and was never
told he was free to 1ea've).

55 See, Brown, 441 F.3d at 1346?48.

67 See Mangual, 311 Conn. at 204-05 .

63 Manguai, 311 Conn. at 205-(citing Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 296?97 (1990))-

69 (Winner Dec]. 11 18.)

7? Grif?n, 922 F.2d at 1350 (citing Davis v. 778 F.2d 168, 171 (4th Cir. 1985)).

71 Brown, 441 F.3d at 1346?49.

10

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 11 of 24

From The Moment The Agents Encountered Winner, Through The Time She Was
Formally Arrested, Winner Was Never Free To Leave. An arrest after a suspect?s
questioning has frequently been held as objective evidence that tends to support the
reasonableness of a defendant?s position that she was in custody during pre-arrest
interrogation."2 Here, after her interrogation, and after being directed and instructed on
where to go, Winner was arrested.73 This factor therefore militates in favor of a ?nding
that Winner was in custody during her questioning.74

Law Enforcement Agents Were There To Search Not Only Her House And Her
Car, But Her Person. Law enforcement speci?cally advised Winner that they had a
search warrant for her person. This fact is signi?cant. ?It goes without saying that
defendant was not free to leave the area while of?cers were conducting the search of the
room. Had that search proved fruitless, defendant herself wasa potential subject for
search. To accomplish such a search, the of?cers were authorized to detain her and call
in a female of?cer. Only one conclusion may be drawn from the evidence: From the
time of?cers entered, defendant was deprived of her freedom of action in 'a signi?cant
way-9975

Likewise, it is monumentally reasonable for a suSpect to believe she is detained when law
enforcement expressly advise her that they have a search warrant for her person, at least
until that search is conducted. Here, all law enforcement agents on the scene?during the
search and interrogation?were men, and any reasonable person, especially a female,
would not feel free to leave until a female agent arrived to conduct the search.76 Indeed,
it was not until female of?cers were called that law enforcement arrested Winner and
transported her to jail.W And even the female of?cers did not search her until they
transported her to jail. Under the circumstances, under the direction and control of law
enforcement, any reasonable person would not have felt free to leave unless and until law
enforcement executed the search warrants,73 which here did not happen until her arrest
and arrival at the jail. This factor therefore cuts in favor of a ?nding of custody.

Winner?s Home Was a Police-Dominated Atmosphere. While courts have generally
been less likely to ?nd that an interrogation in a suspect?s home was custodial, many
courts, including from the Eleventh Circuit, hold that an in-home interrogation may
nonetheless be custodial in nature where a ?police?dominated atmosphere? exists?9 This

 

7'2 See Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1356 (?Grif?n?s arrest at the conclusion of the interview is objective evidence which
tends to support the reasonableness of Grif?n?s subjective belief that he was in custody from the inception of the
encounter and that his arrest was imminent?); Borosiowski, 775 F.3d at 862 (noting that suspect was not released at
the end of interview, counseling in favor of fmding of custody).

73 (Winner Decl. 111i 20? 21.). To be sure, her movement in the immediate aftermath were subject to directives given
by law enforcement?advising her to ?wait? in the front yard, then the fenced yard?but thereafter, she was arrested
by law enforcement. (Id. 20, 21.)

74 See Gri?i?n, 922 F.2d at 1356; Borostowski, 775 F.3d at 862.

75 Wilson, 268 Cal. App. 2d at 586; see State v. Farris, 120 Cal. App. 3d at 56.

76 (See Winner Decl. 1m 3, 4, 8, 21.)

77 (Id. 11 21.)

73 See Farris, 120 Cal. App. 3d at 56; Wilson, 268 Cal. App. 2d at 536.

79 See, e. g, Mattovich, 522 F. App?x at 852 (noting that even in?home interrogations can become ?police-
dominated? atmospheres); Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1083?84; Revels, 510 F.3d at 1275; Mitiel?Carey, 493 F.3d at 40;

11

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 12 of 24

is eSpecially so when the interrogating scene is coupled with teams of agents rummaging
through the suspect?s home pursuant to a search warrant. The rationale for this ?nding of
custody is as persuasive as it is simple: ?a reasonable person interrogated inside his own
home may have a different understanding of whether he is truly free ?to terminate the
interrogation? if his home is crawling with law enforcement agents conducting a warrant-
approved search.?80 In such a scenario, the homeowner-suspect ?may not feel that he can
successfully terminate the interrogation if he knows that he cannot empty his home of his
interrogators until they have completed their search.?81 In other words, when law
enforcement enters a suspect?s residence, ?that residence is no longer a bastion of privacy
and security; rather, it has been transformed, albeit lawfully, into a hub of law
enforcement activity directed against the suspect. Consequently, ?it is not dif?cult to'
envision that a suspect?s sense of captivity can actually be intensi?ed by the intrusive and
intimidating environment created when agents of the law take control of a person?s
private residence. ??32

Here, Winner arrived at her home, only to be confronted with ten armed male law
enforcement agents who executed their search warrant, which authorized a search of her
person.83 Winner had a ?strong motive? to remain in place, given that it was her home,84
and the scene quickly became one that was dominated by law enforcement agents. As a
result, Winner?s home contained the inherent pressures that, by their very nature,
undermine an individual?s ability to make a free and voluntary decision about whether to
speak or remain silent?concems which directly implicate Miranda and are highly
relevant to the custody issue.85 Accordingly, because Winner?s home was a ?police-
dominated atmosphere,? the location of the interrogation counsels in favor of a ?nding
that Winner was in custody.86

 

Sprosni v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir. 1996); Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1354?55; see also Orozca v. Texas, 394
US. 324, 325?26 (1969) (in-home interrogation was custodial).

30 Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1083.

31 Id. Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit mused in Craighead, a reasonable person is interrogated inside his own
home and is told he is ?free to leave,? where will he go? The library? The police station? He is already in the most
constitutionally protected place on earth.? Id.

32 Mangaal, 311 Conn. at 646 (quoting Gri?fn, 922 F. 2d at 1355 n. 15).

33 (Winner Decl. 113. 

84 State v. Kelly, 435 N. W. 2d 807 (Minn. 1989) (in?home interrogation was custodial for purposes of Miranda), see
Craighead, 539 F. 3d at 1089 (noting that suspect testi?ed he did not want to leave his home while it was being
searched because he ?did not want to leave the of?cers alone with his belongings and did not want to leave his dog
unattended?).

35 Mangaal, 311 Conn. at 196 (in-home interrogation was custodial for purposes of Miranda); see Craighead, 539
F.3d 1083?84 (citing cases).

36 See, e. g, Hashime, 734 F.3d at 284?85 (in?home interrogation was custodial for purposes of Miranda Where over
a dozen law enforcement agents entered and searched home, exercising physical control over the defendant and his
family); Craighead, 539 F.3d 1083?84 (finding that eight law enforcement agents from three different agencies,
some aimed, executing a search warrant rendered the defendant?s home being dominated by law enforcement agents
and thus, his interrogation was ?custodial? for purposes of Miranda); Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1354?55 (in?
home interrogation was custodial under Miranda where environment was dominated by law enforcement who
asserted control); Sprasnz, 79 F.3d at 641?42 (in-home interrogation was custodial under Miranda where of?cers
searched horne, rendering enviromnent dominated by law enforcement); United States v. Tummins, No. 
00009, 2011 WL 3420618, at *12?16 (MD. Tenn. Aug. 4, 201.1) (in?home interrogation was custodial for purposes
of Miranda where search warrant executed at suspect?s home); Mahmoad, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 16?19 (in-home
interrogation was custodial for purposes of Miranda where law enforcement search rendered premises dominated by

12

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 13 of 24

0 Law Enforcement Conducted The Interview Where Winner Advised She Did Not
Want To. Law enforcement agents directed Winner to be interviewed in a very small
(no more than 7 by back room of Winner?s house, a room that she speci?cally voiced
her desire to avoid because she thought it was ?creepy,? and that was unfurnished.? Law
enforcement agents closed the door nearly in its entirety33 and stood in ?ont of Winner,
whose back was against a wall. Winner could not have exited the room without.
physically moving both law enforcement agents.? Courts have found similar settings
g, small interview rooms, coupled with agents situated in a way that made it dif?cult
for the suspect to leave) custodial in nature.90 This factor, therefore, cuts in favor of
?nding Winner was in custody.

0 Winner Was Isolated During The Questioning. Authorities hold that ?the law
enforcement technique of isolating the suspect from family and friends is one of the
distinguishing features of a custodial interrogation.?91 Simply put, custodial interrogation
is more likely where a suSpect is isolated from others at the location of the interview.92

While Winner lived alone (and therefore could not by physically separated from her
friends or family), she was nonetheless separated from the substantial activity?eight
armed male law enforcement agents rummaging through her possessions?ongoing in her
house. This factor therefore counsels in favor of a ?nding that Winner was in custody.

- Law Enforcement Initiated The Contact With Winner. As courts have noted, ?where 
suspects take the initiative to offer statements or voluntarily arrange for the questioning,?
custody is ?'equently lacking";3 ?Conversely, when the confrontation between the

 

law enforcement); 456 F. Supp. 2d at 306?307 (in-home interrogation was custodial for purposes of
Miranda where defendant?s house was searched by eight law enforcement agents and environment became ?police-
dominated?); see also Cavazos, 668 F.3d at 194?95 (in-home interrogation was custodial where, inter alia, law
enforcement exercised physical dominion over defendant and more than a dozen of?cers searched suspect?s home);
Revels, 510 F.3d at 1275 (in-home interrogation was custodial for purposes of Miranda where environment was
dominated by police).
37 (Winner Dec]. 1[ 6.)
33 (1d. 117.)
89001) 
9? See, Borosi?owskl, 775 F.3d at 860 (custodial interrogation took place in ?small, crowded bedroom? with
armed agent blocking the door, which counseled in favor of ?nding of custody); Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1086,
1088?89 (noting that custodial interrogation took place in unfurnished ?back storage room,? with a closed door, and 
agents situated so as to block the suspect?s exit from the room, which counseled in favor of ?nding no freedom of
movement); Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 16?19 (custodial interrogation where interview took place in small room
with agents); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 154 (Mass. Ct. App. 2000) (custodial
interrogation where place of interview was small room with closed door shadowed by questioner).
91 Craighead, 539 .3d at 1087 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 445?46, 443?50).
92 See, e. g, Borosrowski, 775 .3d at 860, 862?63 (custodial interrogation where, among other things, suspect was
isolated from family members); Hashime, 734 F.3d at 234 (custodial interrogation where, among other things,
suspect was isolated during interrogation); Cavazos, 668 F.3d at 194 (same); Revels, 510 F.3d at 1275 (same);
Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 17 (?nding custodial interrogation where defendant, who was by himself when agents
arrived at his house, remained isolated during the encounter).
93 Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1351 (citations omitted).

13

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 14 of 24

suspect and the criminal justice system is instigated at the direction of law enforcement
authorities, rather than the suspect, custody is more likely to exist.?94

Here, it is undisputed that law enforcement initiated contact, surprising Winner at her
residence armed with search warrants for her home, car, and person. After presenting
these warrants, the interview at issue began. This factor thus militates in favor of a
?nding that Winner was in custody.

0 Ten Male Law Enforcement Agents Were Present. Winner arrived home from the
grocery store to ?nd a handful of law enforcement agents, to be followed, within minutes,
by a total of ten male law enforcement agents who appeared to execute their search
warrant of her house, car, and person.95 Ten agents are in excess of the number of agents
present in many cases where courts have found suspects were in custody and entitled to 
Miranda warnings.96 This factor, therefore, also cuts in favor of a custody ?nding for
Winner.

0 All Agents Were Armed. While the agents here did not unholster their weapons, all ten
male law enforcement agents were nonetheless armed?a fact Winner took notice of.97
Because courts have held that the armed nature of every law enforcement agent counsels
in favor of ?nding the suspect was in custody, this factor too counsels in favor of ?nding
Winner was in custody?3

0 While Not In Handcuffs, Winner Was Nonetheless Restrained. While Winner was
not physically restrained (by handcuffs or otherwise), courts have held that a suspect may
nonetheless be restrained based on the dominion or control exercised by law enforcement
over the situation and the defendant.99 Thus, for example, a suspect placed ?under guard

 

9? Id. (citations omitted); see Borostowski, 775 F.3d 861?62 (citing cases holding that custody may be found where
suspect did not voluntarily seek out law enforcement) (citations omitted); Mangual, 311 Conn. at 199 (noting that
wholly uneirpected and highly intrusive law enforcement initiative of this sort is likely to be especially alarming
when, as in the present case, the suspect is confronted by a large contingent of armed officers?).

95 (Winner Decl. 3, 4, 8.)

96 See, United States v. Medearz's, 775 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1127 (D.S.D. 2011) (four officers interrogating suspect
in his kitchen, in a police-dominated environment, constituted custodial interrogation); Craighead, 539 F.3d at
1085?86 (eight armed law enforcement agents covering three different agencies entering home to search residence
and interrogate suspect was custodial); Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 14?15, 17 (D. Mass. 2006) (?nding custodial
interrogation in suspect?s interview at home where three armed agents were present for questioning in small area);
Mangual, 311 Conn. at 201 (seven law enforcement of?cers participating in the search of defendant?s residence
counseled in favor of custodial interrogation).

97 (Winner Decl. 1111 3, 4.)

93 See, United States v. Musgrave, 726 F. Supp. 1027, 1029?30, 1033 (W.D.N.C. 1989) (?nding in?home
interrogation custodial where, among other things, agents were visibly armed).

99 See, Cratghead, 539 F.3d at 1085?86; Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1350?51 (citing United States v. Carter, 884 F.2d
368, 372 (8th Cir. 1989); South Dakota v. Long, 465 F.2d 65, 68 (8th Cir. 1972)); United States v. Goodman, 945 F. .
Supp. 359, 365?66 (D. Mass. 1996); Mangual, 311 Conn. at 647 (although not handcuffed, suspect nonetheless
restrained given the ?highly coercive atmOSphere and intimidating police presence, the severe limitation placed on
the defendant?s freedom of movement, and the failure of the police to explain the temporary nature of her
detention?); seealso Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 18.

14

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 15 of 24

during questioning? or ?told to remain in the sight of interrogating of?cials? may
associate those restrains with a formal arrest.100

That is precisely the case here. To begin with, as noted above, in the back room where
agents chose to question Winner, they placed themselves in such a way as to prevent her
exit from the questioninglm Further, after her interrogation, Winner was instructed by
the agents on where to go (?rst the front yard, then the fenced yard) and then, ?nally, she
was placed under arrest.102 As courts have held under similar circumstances, such facts
counsel in favor of ?nding Winner was in custody.103

- Law Enforcement Agents Made It Clear That Winner Was The Only Suspect.
While the subjective beliefs of the participants are irrelevant, ?[c]ustody determinations
ought to consider how the of?cer?s behavior and interactions with the suspect would
affect an individual?s perception of the situation? and the fact that an individual has
become the focus of an investigation is relevant ?to the extent that the suspect is aware of
the evidence against him and this awareness contributes to the suspect?s sense of
custody.?104

Here, this factor militates in favor of a ?nding of custody. While law enforcement almost
certainly believed Winner was the prime suspect of their investigation prior to arriving at
her home, those beliefs became manifested in the agents? interactions with Winner during
the interview. Among other things, law enforcement began the interview by advising
they were at Winner?s house to discuss the ?possible mishandling of classi?ed
information? and wanted to get ?[her] side? of the story.105 As the interview wore on,
law enforcement began hinting at what they believed all along: that Winner was their
prime suSpect.106 As these beliefs were aired to her, along with the evidence, Winner
began to understand that she was the culprit whom they had decided had committed a
crime, further demonstrating the reasonableness of Winner?s belief that she was in
custody and was not free to leave. 107

 

100 See Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1085?86 (suspect escorted to back room, interrogated with door closed, by agents
blocking exit make it objectively reasonable for the suspect to believe he was under guard even though he was not
handcuffed or physically restrained); Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1350?51; Goodman, 945 F. Supp.at 365?66 (although not
handcuffed, suspect was nonetheless restrained where at least two of?cers were present at all times during his
questioning with as many as four of?cers outside his home); Mangual, 311 Conn. at 647 (although not handcuffed,
suspect was nonetheless restrained given the ?highly coercive atmosphere and intimidating police presence, the
severe limitation placed "on the defendant?s freedom of movement, and the failure of the police to explain the
temporary nature of her detention?); see also Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 18 (while not physically restrained,
suspect?s freedom was restrained where agents blocked access to telephone and suspect was required to remain in
view of of?cers).

(Winner Decl. 7.)

(Id. 1i 20.)

103 See, ag, Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1085~86; Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1350?51; Goodman, 945 F. Supp. at 365?66;
Mangual, 311 Conn. at 647; see also Mahmood, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 18.

?34 Mimi?Carey, 456 F. Supp. 2d at 308 (quoting Gri?in, 922 F.2d at 1348).

1'35 (Winner Decl. 1i 10).

(See id. 11?17.)

See Mind?Carey, 456 F. Supp. 2d at 308 (where suSpect was made aware of the evidence against him and was
given the impression that he would be going to prison, this factor counseled in favor of ?nding a custodial
interrogation).

15

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 16 of 24

In sum, application of the non?exclusive list of factors courts analyze to determine
custody strongly counsels in favor of ?nding custody in this case: Winner was not free to leave,
law enforcement agents never told Winner that She was free to leave, and Winner?s movements
were entirely restricted and dictated by law enforcement up until her arrest. No reasonable
person would have felt free to leave and terminate the interrogation, especially when (among
many other things) that person knew law enforcement had a warrant to search her person and had
not effectuated that search.

D. Precedent Dictates That Winner Was ?In Custody? and Therefore Entitled
to Miranda Warnings.

In a very similar case, United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), the
Ninth Circuit determined the suspect was in custody for purposes of Miranda. This Court should 
?nd the same here because the facts even more strongly support a ?nding of custody than they
did in Craighead.

In Craighead, eight law enforcement of?cers went to the residence of a child
pornography suspect to execute a search warrant.108 Two agents asked to speak with the suspect
and advised him that he was ?not under arrest,? that any statement he might make would be
?voluntary,? that he would ?not be arrested that day regardless of what information he provided,?
and that he was ?free to leave.?109 They then escorted the suspect to a ?storage room at the back
of his house,? which appeared to be unfurnished and cluttered with boxes.110 In that back room, -

the agents, who were armed, stood in such a way as to block the exit door to the room, which

 

103 Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1078.
109 Id-
110 Id
16

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 17 of 24

was closed.111 The interview of the suspect lasted a mere twenty to thirty minutes, and the
suspect made many incriminating statements.112 After applying many of the above-listed factors,
the Ninth Circuit found the suspect?s interrogation to be custodial, holding that the atmosphere -
was a police-dominated one, with a large number of armed law enforcement of?cers, which
would have placed a reasonable person under the belief that he was not free to leave.113

The facts in Craighead are similar?and in many respects, identical?to those in this
case. Like Winner, the suspect in Craighead had his home raided by law enforcement agents
from multiple agencies. Like Winner, the suspect in Craighead was not handcuffed.114 Like
Winner, the suspect in Craighead was interrogated in a ?back room,? with law enforcement
situated in a way so as to block the suspect?s exit.115 And like Winner, the interrogation in.
Craighead was relatively brief.116

Importantly, however, facts present in Craighead that counseled against a ?nding of
custody are not present here. In particular, the agents in Craighead advised the suspect that he
Was ?free to leave? and that he would not be arrested that day. By contrast, here, Winner was
never advised she was free to leave and was kept in the dark about her arrest status. Even more,

law enforcement had a search warrant for Winner?s person, which apparently was not the case in

Craighead1082?89.

?4 (See id. ll'll F24.)

1.15 (Id. 1] 7.)

?6 (Id 1[ 19.) While the interrogation was relatively brief, it took approximately two hours from the time the two
male agents arrived until the time the two female of?cers arrived on the scene. (Id. 1121.)

?7 The Ninth Circuit also noted that one the law enforcement of?cers was the military superior to the suspect, who
was a military technician. See Craighead, 539 F.3d at 107748, 1085. A similar indicia of intimidation was present
in this case with Winner, 3 single female, who had her house searched by eight male law enforcement of?cers and
was interrogated by two male law enforcement of?cers. (See Winner Decl. 

17

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 18 of 24

While there does not seem to be any Eleventh Circuit case as close to this case as
Cratghead, cases within Eleventh Circuit jurisprudence in which courts have found a suspect
was not in custody stand in stark contrast to this case.

For example, in United States v. Matcovich, 522 F. App?): 850 (11th Cir. 2013), the
Eleventh-Circuitfound an in?home interrogation to be non?custodial, but several factors existed
in Matcovich that are not?present here. The suspect in Matcovich was unambiguously told that
he ?was free to leave, could begin to answer questions and then stop, and could answer only the
questions he wished.?118 But here, no such comforting options were given to Winner. Also in
Matcovich, while law enforcement utilized handcuffs, law enforcement advised those in the
house that ?they were not under arrest,? and that the handcuffs were just for of?cer safety.119
Winner was never advised that she was not under arrest, and when she speci?cally inquired, the

agents were ambiguous??I don?t know the answer to that yet?120

?a response that would make
any reasonable person feel ?in the dark? and compelled to stay and continue to follow law
enforcement?s directives.121 Furthermore, at the conclusion of the interview in Matcovtch, the

22 Once

suspect left voluntarily (with an FBI polygrapher) and was not arrested until later.1
again, by contrast, after her interrogation, law enforcement directed Winner on her movements

'(?rst the front yard, then the fenced yard) and then, after they arrived on the scene, female

 

?3 Matcovich, 522 F. App?x at 852.

119 Id.

120 (Winner Decl. 1] 18.)

121 Mangual, 311 Conn. at 204?05.

?22 See Matcovtch, 522 F. App?x at 852.

18

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 19 of 24

of?cers arrested Winner.123 Signi?cantly, unlike this case, law enforcement did not appear to
have a search warrant for the person of the suspect in Matcovich. These ?powerful?124 factors

are alone enough to distinguish the non-custodial interview in Matcovtch (and other cases from

125

this district and circuit from this case.

Likewise, in United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit

found a suspect?s interview non-custodial where he was told ?no less than three times by two

different of?cers that he was not under arrest, not in custody, and was free to go at any time.?126

The Eleventh Circuit termed this factor as one ?of substantial importance,?127 which is ?a

POWerful factor in the mix?128

and requires a suspect to ?establish ?extensive? restraints in order
to overcome a ?nding that under the circumstances a reasonable person would have understood
he was free to leave or terminate the interview at'any time.?129 Winner was never provided these
?powerful? and ?substantial? admonitions. Moreover, unlike Winner?s scenario, in Brown, the
suspect ?was never ordered to stay in any particular location,?130 the questioning law
enforcement agent in Brown was not armed,131 and law enforcement did not appear to have a

search warrant for the defendant?s person.132

 

?3 (Winner Decl. 1111 20421.)
12? Matcovich, 522 F. App?x at 851. .
125 Cf United States v. Robinson, No. 2017 WL 3262417, at *3 (SD. Ga. July 14, 2014) (?nding in?
home interrogation to not be custodial where, among other things, of?cers informed defendant he was not under
arrest, free to leave, and pointed to unobstructed access to open back door adjacent to location of interview); see also
United States v. Maldonado, 526 F. App?x 359, 861?62 (11th Cir. 2014) (?nding interrogation non?custodial where
suspect was told she was free to leave and was not in custody, signed forms advising that the interview was
voluntary and that she could stop answering questions at any time, and left the interview at its conclusion and was
not arrested until Weeks later). I
126 Brown, 441 F.3d at 1347.
12? Id.
1281617
129 Id. at 1348.
13? Id. at 1346.
13] Id
132 (Cf Winner Dec]. 1[ 3.)

1 9

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 20 of 24

Other cases from the Eleventh Circuit where the suspect was found not to be in custody
are Similarly distinguishable or inapposite. In United States v. Lazarus, 552 F. App?): 892 (11th
Cir. 2014), for example, the suspect at issue was interrogated at her place of business but
selected the date and time of the interview, and scheduled it in advance with law enforcement133
?a far cry from this case. Likewise, in United States v. Muegge, 225 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir.
2000), the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court?s judgment ?nding a law enforcement
interview as custodial.134 In that case, however, the defendant was asked by his military
supervisor to repOrt to a law enforcement interview, ?came and left on his own,? and was not
arrested until eight months later.135 Unlike here, there was no search warrant in Maegge. 

E. Winner Was Interrogated.

Under the second prong of the ?custodial interrogation? inquiry, the Court must
determine whether the suspect was ?interrogated.? Under Miranda, the term ?interrogation?
refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police
(other so?called ?booking? questions) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit
an incriminating-response from the suspect.?6

Here, there can be no question that Winner was interrogated. Among many other factors,

for the approximately twenty??ve minutes law enforcement questioned her, she was asked about

her work for her employer; her access to various documents relevant to this case; her use of those

 

133 See 552 F. App?x at 894.

134 See 225 F.3d 1267, 1263?71.

135 See id.

135 See, Rhoda Islandv. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300?01 (1980).

20

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 21 of 24

very documents; and speci?cally about the doCument the Government alleges she unlawfully-
disclosed?? Under these circumstances, for purposes of Miranda, Winner was interrogated.
IV. CONCLUSION -

The circumstances of this particular interrogation counsel in favor of a ?nding that
Winner was in custody during her encounter with law enforcement. Winner?s house was
invaded with law enforcement of?cers who swarmed her residence. Winner was then taken to a
back room, which was unfurnished and which she described as a ?creepy? and isolated place,
with her back against the wall, and interviewed by two agents who blocked her exit ?om the
room, which was nearly closed off from the rest. of the house. The law enforcement at the scene
were all men, were all armed, and, signi?cantly, never advised her she was ?free to leave.? To
the contrary, prior to and during the search, Winner was directed where to go by law
enforcement at all times. Also, Winner was never told that she was not under arrest, and law
enforcement unambiguously advised that her arrest was a determination yet to be made?a
further factor bearing a reasonable person?s belief that she would not be free to leave. Even
more, Winner was advised that law enforcement had a search warrant for her person. Any
reasonable person would understand this fact to mean that she was not free to leave until such the
personal search had been completed, which in this case, did not happen until female law
enforcement arrived, arrested her, and then transported her to jail?long after the decision to
arrest her had been made.

In View of all of the relevant factors, and applicable authorities, it is quite clear Winner
was subjected to a custodial interrogation that required law enforcement to advise her of her
Miranda rights, which they indisputably did not. Accordingly, her statements to law

enforcement, and any evidence obtained as a result of those statements, must be suppressed.

 

?7 (See Winner Decl. 11?17.) 
21

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 22 of 24

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

defendant Reality Leigh Winner respectfully requests that the Court grant an evidentiary hearing

in connection with the instant Motion to Suppress; that the Court grant the Motion to Suppress;

that the Court suppress any statements made by Winner taken in Violation of Miranda; that the

Court suppress any evidence obtained as a result of those statements; and that the Court grant

such additional relief as may be warranted.

Respectfully submitted,

BY:

/s/John C. Bell Jr.

John C. Bell, Jr. (Bar No. 048600)
Titus T. Nichols (Bar No. 870662)
BELL BRINGHAM

PO Box 1547

Augusta, GA 30903-1547

(706) 722?2014
John@bellbrigham.com
Titus@bellbrigham.com

 

Joe D. Whitley (Bar No. 756150)
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Brett A. Switzer (Bar No. 554141)
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL BERKOWITZ, RC.
3414 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30326

(404) 577-6000

Whitley@b akerdonelsoncom


Matthew S. Chester (La. Bar No. 36411) 
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL BERKOWITZ, RC.
201 St. Charles Ave, Suite 3600

New Orleans, LA 70170

(504) 566?5200
MChester@bakerdonelson.com I

22

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 23 of 24

Jill E. McCook (T11. Bar No. 033813)
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL BERKOWITZ, RC.
265 Brookview Centre Way, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37919

(865) 549-7129
JMC00k@bakerd0nelson.com

Thomas H. Barnard (AZ. Bar No. 27488)
Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL BERKOWITZ, RC.
100 Light Street.

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 685-1120
TBarnard@bakerdonelson.eom

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
REALITY LEIGH WINNER

23

 

Case Document 63-1 Filed 08/29/17 Page 24 of 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 29, 2017, I electronically ?led the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent noti?cation of such ?ling to counsel of

record for all parties.

/S/J0hn C. Bail, Jr.
JOHN C. BELL, JR.

 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

24