United States v. Feliz, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Feliz, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2204

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

VI CTOR MANUEL FELI Z,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Bar r y S. Pol l ack, wi t h whom Pol l ack Sol omon Duf f y LLP was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mar a L. Mont aez- Concepci n, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, and Thomas F. Kl umper , Assi st ant Uni t ed

St at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 16, 2015


2/23

- 2 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. At i ssue ar e t he pr oper pr ocedur es

f or det er mi ni ng whet her a conf essi on i s vol unt ar y under J ackson v.

Denno, 378 U. S. 368 ( 1964) . The pr ocedur e f ol l owed by t he t r i al

cour t was based on an er r or , so we vacat e t he def endant ' s

convi ct i on and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on. See Si ms v. Geor gi a, 385 U. S. 538, 544 ( 1967) . Al t hough

i ssues under Mi r anda v. Ar i zona, 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966) , exi st ed

ear l i er , t hey ar e not r ai sed i n t hi s appeal .

Vi ct or Fel i z, a yout h wi t h no pr i or r ecor d, was convi ct ed

i n December 2012 of possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a

dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ,

and possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne base, i n vi ol at i on

of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C) . Hi s convi ct i on was based

l ar gel y on t wo wr i t t en conf essi ons. Bef or e t r i al , Fel i z moved t o

suppr ess t he conf essi ons as i nvol unt ar y, bei ng i nduced by thr eat s

made to hi m as t o reper cussi ons t o hi s mot her and hi s young

si bl i ngs i f he di d not conf ess.

The magi st r at e j udge hear d t est i mony f r om t wo pol i ce

of f i cer s t hat t he conf essi ons wer e f r eel y made, and, cont r ar i l y,

f r om Fel i z and hi s mot her t hat t he gover nment had di ct at ed t o hi m

hi s conf essi ons, whi ch he si gned, af t er of f i cer s t hr eat ened hi s

mot her wi t h depor t at i on and hi s si bl i ngs wi t h bei ng put i nt o st at e


3/23

- 3 -

cust ody. The magi st r at e j udge r ecommended t hat t he conf essi ons be

suppr essed as i nvol unt ar y. As r el evant her e, t he gover nment f i l ed

obj ect i ons as t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s f act ual f i ndi ng t hat t he

st at ement s wer e di ct at ed and the concl usi on t hat t he st at ement s

wer e i nvol unt ar y.

The di st r i ct cour t conduct ed a de novo hear i ng. Ther e,

t he di st r i ct cour t excl uded t he def ense t est i mony about t he

ci r cumst ances of t he conf essi ons i nvol vi ng pol i ce pr essur e as

hear say. I t t hen made a ser i es of ambi guous st atement s t o t he

ef f ect t hat any i ssue about credi bi l i t y goi ng t o t he vol unt ar i ness

of a conf essi on was f or t he j ur y, not f or t he j udge, t o deci de.

Then, about t wo months l at er , i t di r ect l y r ul ed and st at ed t hat i t

admi t t ed t he conf essi ons i nt o evi dence, because, i n i t s vi ew, t he

r ecor d bef or e i t cont ai ned no evi dence of coer ci on ( havi ng excl uded

t hat evi dence on hear say gr ounds) . On r evi ew, we cannot concl ude

t hat t he conf essi ons wer e vol unt ar y, because t he di st r i ct cour t

er r oneousl y excl uded f r om consi der at i on t he cr i t i cal evi dence t o

t he cont r ary. We vacate and r emand. 1

1 I n l i ght of t hi s di sposi t i on, we do not reach Fel i z' scl ai m of sent enci ng er r or .


4/23

- 4 -

I .

A. Fact ual Backgr ound

On Febr uar y 3, 2012, at 5: 45 a. m. , Puer t o Ri co pol i ce

execut ed a sear ch war r ant 2 at a home i n Dorado, Puer t o Ri co. Fi ve

of f i cer s ar r i ved at t he house, wher e t hey f ound Fel i z' s mot her ,

st epf at her , mi nor si st er s, and i nf ant br ot her . Fel i z hi msel f , an

ei ght een- year - ol d wi t h no cr i mi nal r ecor d, was not pr esent .

Fel i z' s st epf at her Lui s Ri ver a, t he owner of t he house, i dent i f i ed

t he bedr oomi n whi ch Fel i z had l ast st ayed. The of f i cer s t est i f i ed

t hat t hey f ound a l oaded pi st ol , mor e ammuni t i on, ei ght y- seven

capsul es of cocai ne base, and $1, 384 i n cash i n the bedr oom. They

ar r est ed Ri ver a, Fel i z' s stepf at her , f or possessi ng a f i r ear m

wi t hout a l i cense. They t hen t r anspor t ed Ri ver a and t he r est of

t he f ami l y, i ncl udi ng t he t wo- year - ol d i nf ant , t o t he pol i ce

st at i on.

At t hi s poi nt , t he account s of t he pol i ce of f i cer s and

Fel i z' s f ami l y di ver ge. Accor di ng t o t he pol i ce of f i cer s, as t he

2 The sear ch warr ant was based on a t i p f r oman i nf ormantand subsequent obser vat i on of Fel i z at t he home by Puert o Ri co

pol i ce of f i cer s. I n t he di st r i ct cour t , Fel i z sought a Fr ankshear i ng, ar gui ng t hat t he af f i davi t accompanyi ng t he sear chwar r ant cont ai ned mat er i al f act s t hat wer e f al se or made wi t hr eckl ess di sr egar d f or t hei r t r ut h. See Franks v. Del awar e, 438U. S. 154 ( 1978) . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on on Sept ember15, 2012, and Fel i z has not appeal ed t hat deci si on.


5/23

- 5 -

of f i cer s got i nt o t hei r pat r ol car s, Fel i z appear ed and appr oached

t he house. One of t he of f i cer s, Agent J os Vl ez, l ef t hi s car ,

gave Fel i z a Mi r anda warni ng, ar r est ed hi m, and dr ove hi m t o t he

pol i ce st at i on. At t he st at i on, Agent Vl ez agai n gave Fel i z t he

Mi r anda war ni ngs, t hi s t i me ver bal l y and i n wr i t i ng. Fel i z si gned

t hat he under st ood hi s Mi r anda r i ght s, and t hen, ar ound 7: 30 a. m. ,

t he pol i ce say he wr ote a conf essi on on t he r ever se si de of t he

Mi r anda f orm. The conf essi on st at ed t hat Fel i z owned t he gun,

dr ugs, and money, and t hat hi s f ami l y di d not know of t hem. Fel i z

al so si gned a pr oper t y sei zur e f or m.

The pol i ce of f i cer s say t hey t hen t ook Fel i z t o t he

of f i ce of t he f eder al Bur eau of Al cohol , Tobacco, and Fi r ear ms

( ATF) i n San J uan f or DNA t est i ng. Agent J os Lpez, an of f i cer

of t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce par t i ci pat i ng i n an ATF t ask f or ce,

conduct ed t he t est i ng. Fel i z began cr yi ng and conf essi ng agai n.

Agent Lpez i mmedi at el y gave Fel i z a ver bal Mi r anda war ni ng, t ol d

Fel i z t o st op, and had Fel i z r ead and si gn a wr i t t en Mi r anda f or m.

Fel i z t hen agai n wr ot e a conf essi on on t he r ever se si de of t he

Mi r anda f orm, around 2: 30 p. m. Thi s second, more detai l ed

conf essi on expl ai ned t hat Fel i z obt ai ned t he f i r ear m f or

pr ot ect i on whi l e sel l i ng dr ugs, and t hat he began sel l i ng dr ugs t o

pr ovi de f or hi s t en- mont h- ol d son whi l e Fel i z was unempl oyed.


6/23

- 6 -

Fel i z and hi s mot her , Hor t enci a Fel i z, r ecount ed a

di f f er ent t al e. Accor di ng t o t hem, af t er t he sear ch of t he house,

t he pol i ce of f i cer s t ol d Fel i z' s mot her t o cal l Fel i z. She di d.

Fel i z mi ssed her cal l , but soon r et ur ned i t . One of t he of f i cer s

t ook t he phone f r om hi s mot her t o speak wi t h Fel i z. The of f i cer

t ol d Fel i z t o t ur n hi msel f i n, because "al l of t hat " was hi s. The

of f i cer al so t hr eat ened Fel i z t hat , i f he r ef used t o t ur n hi msel f

i n, hi s si bl i ngs woul d be sent t o t he cust ody of t he Depar t ment of

Fami l y Af f ai r s. Fel i z' s mot her was audi bl e t o Fel i z, cr yi ng i n

t he background. Hor t enci a conf i r med hi s account .

Fel i z t ur ned hi msel f i n t o t he pol i ce at t he st at i on,

wher e of f i cer s wal ked hi mpast hi s f ami l y and i nt o an i nt er r ogat i on

r oom. One of t he of f i cer s tol d hi m t hat i f he f ai l ed t o conf ess,

hi s mother , a Domi ni can nat i onal , woul d be deport ed. Agent Vl ez

t hen di ctat ed t he f i r st conf essi on t o Fel i z. Af t er Fel i z wr ot e

out t he conf essi on, Agent Vl ez t ol d Fel i z t o si gn t he Mi r anda

f or m, pr esent i ng i t as an af t er t hought and wi t hout gi vi ng Fel i z

t he oppor t uni t y t o r ead i t .

Lat er , i n t he ATF of f i ce' s i nt er r ogat i on r oom, Agent

Lpez t hr eat ened Fel i z t hat i f he di d not conf ess agai n, hi s mot her

woul d be depor t ed and si st er s r emoved t o t he cust ody of t he st at e.


7/23

- 7 -

Agent Lpez di ct at ed t he second, mor e det ai l ed conf essi on t o Fel i z.

Fel i z s i gned t he second Mi r anda wai ver .

B. Magi st r at e J udge Proceedi ngs

The gover nment f i l ed a cr i mi nal compl ai nt agai nst Fel i z

on Febr uar y 3, 2012, char gi ng hi m wi t h possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

924( c) , and possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne base,

i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) . A gr and j ur y i ndi cted Fel i z

on t he same t wo count s, al ong wi t h a f or f ei t ur e al l egat i on, on

Mar ch 1, 2012. Fel i z ent er ed a pl ea of not gui l t y.

On Apr i l 16, 2012, Fel i z moved t o suppr ess t he Mi r anda

war ni ngs and wai ver f or m, hi s st at ement s wr i t t en on the back of

t hose f orms, and t he evi dence sei zed f r omhi s home, whi ch he ar gued

had been pl ant ed by t he pol i ce. The di st r i ct cour t r ef er r ed t he

mot i on t o a magi st r ate j udge on May 4, 2012.

On J une 7, 2012, t he magi st r ate j udge hel d a suppr essi on

hear i ng. Agent Vl ez and Agent Lpez t est i f i ed f or t he gover nment ,

and Fel i z, Ri ver a, and Fel i z' s mot her Hor t enci a t est i f i ed f or t he

def ense. Fel i z' s si st er al so t est i f i ed f or t he def ense, sayi ng

t hat she saw t he pol i ce of f i cer s br i ng a bl ack bag i nt o t he house

on t he day of t he sear ch.


8/23

- 8 -

On J une 20, 2012, t he magi st r ate j udge i ssued a Report

and Recommendat i on. The j udge f ound t hat , "af t er obser vi ng t hei r

demeanor and not i ng t hei r consi st ency, as wel l as t hat of t he ot her

wi t nesses, " " t he t est i mony of Def endant Fel i z and hi s f ami l y

members" was cr edi bl e. The magi st r ate j udge cr edi t ed t hat

t est i mony over t he t est i mony of t he pol i ce of f i cer s.

Appl yi ng t he l aw t o t he ver si on of event s of f er ed by t he

Fel i z f ami l y, t he magi st r ate j udge r ecommended t hat both

conf ess i ons be suppr essed because nei t her was made vol unt ar i l y.

Fel i z di d not wai ve hi s Mi r anda r i ght s bef or e maki ng t he f i r st

st atement . He al so made t he st atement under " i nt ense psychol ogi cal

pr essur es" : t he thr eat ened deport at i on of hi s mot her and r emoval

of hi s s i st er s f r om t hei r f ami l y, and t he f act t hat hi s ent i r e

f ami l y was i n pol i ce cust ody and at t he pol i ce st at i on. The second

conf essi on was i nvol unt ar y f or t he same reasons.

The magi st r at e j udge r ecommended deni al of t he mot i on t o

suppr ess t he physi cal evi dence, concl udi ng that "whet her t hat

evi dence was possessed or pl ant ed i s a quest i on f or t he j ur y. "

However , t he j udge "doubt [ ed] whether Fel i z ever possessed any of

i t . " The Fel i z f ami l y' s t est i mony i ndi cat ed t hat Fel i z had not

l i ved i n t he house f or mont hs pr i or t o t he sear ch, t hat hi s younger

si st er l i ved i n t he r oomat t he t i me of t he sear ch, t hat t he agent s


9/23

- 9 -

" f ound" t he gun i n a l aundr y hamper mi nut es af t er ent er i ng t he

home and out si de t he pr esence of any of Fel i z' s f ami l y, and t hat

t he agent s t ook no photogr aphs of t he cr i me scene and di d not t est

t he gun or dr ugs f or f i nger pr i nt s. Fel i z' s mot her and si st er each

t est i f i ed t hat t hey saw t he pol i ce br i ng a duf f l e bag i nt o t he

house.

Fel i z di d not obj ect t o t he Report and Recommendat i on,

but t he government di d onJ ul y 3, 2012. The gover nment obj ect ed

t o t he f act ual f i ndi ngs t hat Fel i z' s st at ement s wer e made bef or e

he r ecei ved t he Mi r anda war ni ngs f or m and si mpl y f ol l owed t he

di ctat i on of t he pol i ce of f i cer s. I t al so obj ected t o t he f i ndi ng

t hat Fel i z di d not l i ve at t he house i n Dor ado, Puer t o Ri co. The

gover nment concor dant l y obj ected t o t he concl usi on t hat t he

conf essi ons were made i nvol unt ar i l y and shoul d be suppr essed.

C. Di st r i ct Cour t Pr oceedi ngs

The di st r i ct j udge hel d a de novo hear i ng on J ul y 6,

2012. The di st r i ct cour t hear d f r om Agent Vl ez and Agent Lpez,

as wel l as Ri ver a and, i ni t i al l y, Hor t enci a. Hor t enci a began

descr i bi ng t he f i r st t hr eat by the agent over t he phone t o her

son, t hat an of f i cer t ol d Fel i z t hat hi s si bl i ngs wer e "al l goi ng

t o t he Depar t ment of t he Fami l y. " The di st r i ct cour t sust ai ned a

hear say obj ect i on and cut of f t he l i ne of quest i oni ng. The


10/23

- 10 -

di str i ct cour t sai d, "Thi s i s hear say. . . . [ I ] f you want t hat

pr oof t o come i n, you have to Subpoena the pol i ce. " The di st r i ct

cour t r ej ect ed def ense counsel ' s at t empt s t o ar gue t hat a hear say

except i on appl i ed, sayi ng, " I f you want al l t hese hear say

st at ement s t o come i n, you have t o Subpoena t he pol i ce. " I n i t s

vi ew, t he def ense shoul d have subpoenaed t he pol i ce of f i cer who

al l egedl y spoke t o Fel i z by phone and had not t est i f i ed at ei t her

hear i ng. The cour t si mi l ar l y excl uded Hor t enci a' s account of t he

pol i ce of f i cer ' s deal i ngs wi t h Fel i z at t he pol i ce st at i on as

hear say.

When t he def ense t r i ed t o cal l Fel i z' s si st er t o t est i f y,

t he government obj ect ed on r el evance gr ounds, because her

t est i mony woul d be rel evant t o whether t he dr ugs were pl ant ed, but

not t o whet her Fel i z' s st at ement s wer e vol unt ar y. The di st r i ct

cour t obser ved t hat Fel i z di d not obj ect t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s

deci si on on t he physi cal evi dence. At t he concl usi on of t hat

col l oquy, t he di st r i ct j udge sai d:

The i ssue her e you ar e f i ght i ng i s t hest atement s of t he def endant . And t he evi dencet hat I amhear i ng put s t he so- cal l ed st at ementof t he def endant i n t he r eal m of credi bi l i t y.And i f i t i s i n t he real mof credi bi l i t y, t hi sJ udge cannot deci de i t . That i s goi ng t obel ong t o t he j ur y. . . . By t he evi dence Ihave hear d, you can pr oduce seven wi t nessesher e t hat say, no, he di dn' t gi ve t hat


11/23

- 11 -

st at ement . And t he Uni t ed St at es wi l l pr oduceseven mor e t hat say, yes, i t i svol unt ar y. . . . I cannot suppr ess a mat t ert hat i s i n t he r eal mof credi bi l i t y. ( emphases

added) .

Def ense counsel r epl i ed, "Then, J udge, at t hi s t i me we r est and we

move f or war d. " Nei t her Fel i z' s si st er nor Fel i z hi msel f t est i f i ed

at t he de novo hear i ng.

The j udge i mmedi at el y concl uded: "Wel l , i f t hat i s t he

case, t hen t he J udge f i nds t hat t he mat t er of t he st at ement s of

t he def endant s f al l i n t he r eal m of credi bi l i t y. And, t her ef or e,

t hey bel ong t o t he j ur y. . . . Thi s doesn' t bel ong t o me. "

( emphasi s added) . The j udge di d not make an expr ess f i ndi ng at

t he hear i ng t hat t he conf essi on was made vol unt ar i l y.

The di st r i ct cour t t hen consi der ed Fel i z' s bai l . On

J une 8, 2012, t he magi st r at e j udge had r evi ewed Fel i z' s bai l and

r el eased hi m on a $10, 000 bond. The di st r i ct cour t had hel d a de

novo bai l hear i ng on J une 20. Af t er hear i ng more evi dence at t he

suppr essi on hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Fel i z

shoul d be det ai ned. When di scussi ng t he wei ght of t he evi dence,

t he di st r i ct cour t sai d t hat t he conf essi ons seemed "val i d because

t hey have too much detai l . "

On Sept ember 15, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t ent er ed a

wr i t t en or der denyi ng t he suppr essi on mot i on. I t st at ed t hat "no


12/23

- 12 -

evi dence was submi t t ed t hat Fel i z was coer ced by t he st at e pol i ce. "

Evi dence to the cont r ar y on whi ch t he magi st r at e j udge rel i ed "was

not r ei t er at ed i n t he hear i ng bef or e t he under si gned. " The cour t

al so not ed t hat t he conf essi ons si gned by Fel i z, i ncl udi ng a

Mi r anda war ni ng, wer e wr i t t en i n hi s own handwr i t i ng, and t he

second was " r epl et e wi t h det ai l s. " The cour t added t hat phone

cal l s Fel i z made f r ompr i son suggest ed a "consci ousness of gui l t , "

so i t f ound t hat "t he credi bi l i t y of t he pol i ce of f i cer s execut i ng

t he sear ch war r ant i s . . . much mor e rel i abl e and t r ust wor t hy

t han Fel i z' [ si c] mot her ' s and st ep- f at her ' s ver si on of t he

r el evant f acts. "

Nonet hel ess, t he cour t cont i nued, " t her e r emai ns an

i ssue of credi bi l i t y, " so "t he Cour t al l ows Fel i z, i f he so

chooses, t o pr esent t he i ssue of vol unt ar i ness of hi s conf essi on

t o t he j ury at t r i al . "

Fel i z' s j ur y t r i al began on December 3, 2012. On

December 10, Fel i z moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude hi s conf ess i ons. I n

cour t t he next day, t he cour t began di scussi ng t he mot i on by sayi ng

t hat "whet her t hi s was a conf essi on t hat was coer ced or not

coer ced, t hat i s an i ssue [ ] f or t he j ur y to deci de. " Def ense

counsel expl ai ned t hat he f i l ed t he second mot i on "because t he

r ecor d of t he case i s not cl ear as t o whet her or not [ t he di st r i ct


13/23

- 13 -

cour t ] act ual l y over t ur ned t he repor t and recommendat i ons, whi ch

we under st and t hat [ t he di st r i ct cour t ] di d, but i t i s not shown

on t he r ecor d. " The di st r i ct cour t r epl i ed,

The Cour t , I t hought , made i t ver y cl ear t hatI t hought t hat my i mpr essi on was t hat t heconf essi on was not coer ced, but I t hi nk thatt hi s i s an i ssue of credi bi l i t y, whi ch may ber epeat ed t o t he j ur y. Al l r i ght ? That i s mydet er mi nat i on. . . . I even made an anal ysi sof cer t ai n l et t er s t hat I t hought wer er epeat ed const ant l y i n t he same f ashi on,meani ng t o me t hat t her e was no coer ci on.

At t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he conf essi ons

and i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t o "deci de (1) whet her Vi ct or Manuel Fel i z

made the st atement [ s] , and ( 2) i f so, how much wei ght t o gi ve

[ t hem] . "

On December 18, 2012, t he j ur y convi ct ed Fel i z on both

count s. On Sept ember 3, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced Fel i z

t o ei ght y- seven mont hs i mpr i sonment : si xt y mont hs on Count 1 and

t went y- seven mont hs on Count 2, ser ved consecut i vel y, al ong wi t h

f i ve year s of super vi sed r el ease. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I .

Fel i z chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s

mot i on t o suppr ess hi s st at ement s as i nvol unt ar y. We r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs and credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons


14/23

- 14 -

f or cl ear er r or , and i t s concl usi ons of l aw de novo. Uni t ed St at es

v. Awer , 770 F. 3d 83, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Fel i z of f er s t wo ar gument s. Fi r st , he ar gues t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not act ual l y deci de t he vol unt ar i ness of t he

conf essi ons as i t was r equi r ed t o do. Second, he ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s l at er wr i t t en vol unt ar i ness deci si on cannot be

sust ai ned. Because t he di st r i ct cour t bel at edl y di d r ul e t he

st at ement s wer e vol unt ar y, we f ocus ul t i mat el y on t he second poi nt .

A. Di d t he Di st r i ct Cour t Deci de t he I ssue?

The Const i t ut i on prohi bi t s admi ssi on of a coer ced

conf essi on t o pr ove a def endant ' s gui l t . Uni t ed St at es v. J acques,

744 F. 3d 804, 809 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng Di cker son v. Uni t ed

St at es, 530 U. S. 428, 433 ( 2000) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Faul ki ngham,

295 F. 3d 85, 90 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Accor di ngl y, i n f eder al cour t s,

t r i al j udges are t asked wi t h det er mi ni ng t he vol unt ar i ness of a

convi ct i on bef or e t r i al . See 18 U. S. C. 3501( a) ; Cr ane v.

Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 683, 687- 88 ( 1986) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hughes,

640 F. 3d 428, 438 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; see al so J ackson, 378 U. S. at

376- 79. The vol unt ar i ness i nqui r y pr obes " t he physi cal and

psychol ogi cal envi r onment t hat yi el ded t he conf essi on, " a "pur el y

l egal quest i on. " Cr ane, 476 U. S. at 688- 89. The t r i al j udge

consi der s " t he tot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng bot h t he


15/23

- 15 -

nat ur e of t he pol i ce act i vi t y and t he def endant ' s si t uat i on" t o

deci de "whether t he wi l l of t he def endant had been overborne so

t hat t he st at ement was not hi s f r ee and vol unt ar y act . " J acques,

744 F. 3d at 809 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thi s deci si on i s f or t he j udge because a j ury "may f i nd

i t di f f i cul t t o under st and t he pol i cy f or bi ddi ng r el i ance upon a

coer ced, but t r ue, conf essi on. " J ackson, 378 U. S. at 382. As t he

Supr eme Cour t has expl ai ned, " [ t ] hat a t r ust wor t hy conf ess i on must

al so be vol unt ar y i f i t i s t o be used at al l , gener at es nat ur al

and pot ent pr essur e t o f i nd i t vol unt ar y. " I d. Accor di ngl y,

l et t i ng a j ur y make bot h t he vol unt ar i ness and credi bi l i t y f i ndi ngs

r i sks l et t i ng "mat t er s per t ai ni ng t o t he def endant ' s gui l t . . .

i nf ect t he j ur y' s f i ndi ngs of f act bear i ng upon vol unt ar i ness, as

wel l as i t s concl usi on upon t hat i ssue i t sel f . " I d. at 383; see

Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 485 ( 1972) ( " [ W] e f ear ed [ i n J ackson]

t hat t he r el i abi l i t y and t r ut hf ul ness of even coer ced conf essi ons

coul d i mper mi ssi bl y i nf l uence a j ur y' s j udgment as t o

vol unt ar i ness. " ) . The bur den of pr oof i s on t he pr osecut i on t o

show by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence t o the j udge t hat t he

conf ess i on was vol unt ar y. See Lego, 404 U. S. at 489; Uni t ed St at es

v. Huf st et l er , 782 F. 3d 19, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .


16/23

- 16 -

Once t he t r i al j udge render s a "cl ear - cut det er mi nat i on

t hat t he conf essi on . . . was i n f act vol unt ar y, " t he def endant

gener al l y r et ai ns t he f r eedom t o "f ami l i ar i ze a j ur y wi t h

ci r cumst ances t hat at t end t he t aki ng of hi s conf essi on, i ncl udi ng

f act s bear i ng upon i t s wei ght and vol unt ar i ness. " Lego 404 U. S.

at 483, 486. That i s so because t he j ur y i s empowered t o "assess

t he t r ut hf ul ness of conf essi ons, " i d. at 485 - - t hei r cr edi bi l i t y

- - as par t of t hei r deci si on on "t he ul t i mat e f actual i ssue of t he

def endant ' s gui l t or i nnocence. " Cr ane, 476 U. S. at 689; see 18

U. S. C. 3501( a) ; Fed. R. Evi d. 104( e) .

Fel i z ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct j udge never made t he

r equi r ed f i ndi ng of vol unt ar i ness, i nst ead def er r i ng t he i ssue f or

t he j ur y. The gover nment cont est s Fel i z' s r eadi ng of t he r ecor d,

but i t does not ar gue that such a def er r al woul d be l awf ul .

The magi st r at e j udge r ecommended t hat t he di st r i ct j udge

f i nd t hat t he conf essi ons wer e i nvol unt ar y. The di st r i ct j udge

conduct ed a de novo hear i ng and exerci sed hi s aut hor i t y t o make a

de novo det er mi nat i on, as t he l aw per mi t s. See 28 U. S. C.

636( b) ( 1) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lawl or , 406 F. 3d 37, 40 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Raddat z, 477 U. S. 667, 676 ( 1980) ) .

At t he concl usi on of t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct j udge sai d onl y

t hat " t he mat t er of t he st at ement s of t he def endant f al l [ s] i n t he


17/23

- 17 -

r eal mof cr edi bi l i t y, " wi t hout maki ng a vol unt ar i ness f i ndi ng. I n

hi s wr i t t en opi ni on denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess, t he di st r i ct

j udge concl uded t hat t her e was no evi dence of coer ci on, but al so

t hat "t her e r emai ns an i ssue of credi bi l i t y, " so Fel i z may "pr esent

t he i ssue of t he vol unt ar i ness of t he conf essi on t o t he j ur y at

t r i al . " The di st r i ct cour t onl y cl ear l y expl ai ned t hat t he

conf essi ons wer e vol unt ar y when denyi ng Fel i z' s mot i on i n l i mi ne

at t r i al .

The di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si ons ar e not a model of

cl ar i t y. And we cannot mer el y ext r apol at e f r om t he f act t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he suppr essi on mot i on: t hat f act coul d mean

ei t her t hat t he cour t made t he pr oper vol unt ar i ness f i ndi ng or

t hat t he cour t made no f i ndi ng and def er r ed t he i ssue t o t he j ur y.

Cf . J ackson, 378 U. S. at 378- 80. Si mi l ar l y, whi l e t he di st r i ct

cour t accur at el y observed t hat t he j ur y may deci de i ssues of

credi bi l i t y, i t al so used t he t erm "credi bi l i t y" t o descr i be i t s

own anal ysi s. Any r ul e t hat r equi r es t he vol unt ar i ness of a

conf essi on t o be deci ded by t he j ur y and not t he j udge when a

wi t ness' s credi bi l i t y i s at i ssue i s er r oneous under J ackson v.

Denno.

Onl y i mmedi at el y bef or e t he openi ng st at ement s at t r i al

di d t he di st r i ct cour t unequi vocal l y concl ude t hat t he conf essi ons


18/23

- 18 -

wer e not coer ced - - meani ng, pr esumabl y, t hat t hey wer e vol unt ar y.

But t hat was enough t o pr ovi de a suf f i ci ent l y cl ear r ul i ng bef or e

t he openi ng st at ement s at t r i al . "Al t hough t he j udge need not

make f or mal f i ndi ngs of f act or wr i t e an opi ni on, hi s concl usi on

t hat t he conf essi on i s vol unt ar y must appear f r om t he r ecor d wi t h

unmi st akabl e cl ar i t y. " Si ms, 385 U. S. at 544. That r ul i ng came

at t he def endant ' s r equest , and Fel i z has not suggest ed t hat he

was pr ej udi ced i n any way by t he ambi gui t y persi st i ng between t he

Sept ember 15, 2012, wr i t t en order and the December 11, 2012, order

at t r i al .

B. The Tr i al J udge' s Rul i ng That t he Conf essi ons Wer e Vol unt ar y

"The vol unt ar i ness of a def endant ' s conf essi on i s a

quest i on of l aw mer i t i ng de novo r evi ew. " J acques, 744 F. 3d at

809. We bypass t he quest i on of whether def endant appr opr i atel y

pr eser ved hi s obj ect i on t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s vol unt ar i ness

f i ndi ng; t he st andar ds f or pl ai n er r or have been met . The er r or

was obvi ous; i t pr ej udi ced Fel i z, si nce t he di st r i ct cour t ' s basi s

f or denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess was t hat no evi dence of coer ci on

was submi t t ed at t he de novo hear i ng; and i t ser i ousl y i mpugned

t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or r eput at i on of t he pr oceedi ng. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Cor r ea- Osor i o, 784 F. 3d 11, 17- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .


19/23

- 19 -

The gover nment ar gues onl y i n a per f unct or y f oot not e

t hat t he conf essi on woul d be vol unt ary even under t he event s as

descr i bed by Fel i z' s f ami l y. So t he vol unt ar i ness i ssue hi nges on

t he r ecor d and t he expl anat i on pr ovi ded by the di st r i ct cour t .

The di st r i ct cour t cur t ai l ed t he r ecor d bef or e i t when

i t excl uded as hear say Hor t enci a' s t est i mony t hat she hear d a

pol i ce of f i cer t hr eat en Fel i z wi t h t he depor t at i on of hi s mot her

and st at e cust ody f or hi s si bl i ngs. The cour t never eval uat ed t he

t wo compet i ng account s, because i t r ul ed t hat onl y one account was

bef ore i t .

Thi s was pl ai n er r or . Hearsay i s a st at ement " t he

decl ar ant does not make whi l e t est i f yi ng at t he cur r ent t r i al or

hear i ng, " and "a par t y of f er s i n evi dence t o pr ove t he t r ut h of

t he mat t er asser t ed i n t he st at ement . " Fed. R. Evi d. 801( c) .

Fel i z di d not at t empt t o i nt r oduce t est i mony of t he of f i cer s'

t hr eat s f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed. Hor t enci a t est i f i ed,

f or exampl e, t hat t he of f i cer sai d "your si bl i ngs ar e al l goi ng t o

t he Depar t ment of Fami l y. " Bef or e t he magi st r at e j udge, Hor t enci a

t est i f i ed t hat an of f i cer sai d t o Fel i z, "We ar e goi ng t o depor t

your mot her . " She al so t est i f i ed t her e t hat t he of f i cer s t ol d

Fel i z t hat i f he di d not t ur n hi msel f i n, "t hey wer e goi ng t o

depor t me and t hey were goi ng t o cal l t he Depar t ment of t he Fami l y


20/23

- 20 -

t o t ake t he boy and gi r l s. " That t est i mony woul d not show t hat

Fel i z' s si bl i ngs woul d t r ul y be sent t o t he Depar t ment of t he

Fami l y i f he di d not t ur n hi msel f i nt o pol i ce cust ody, or t hat she

woul d have been depor t ed. Rat her , t he t est i mony, i f cr edi bl e,

woul d show t he f act t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer made the t hr eat t o

Fel i z, a f act wi t hi n Hor t enci a' s per sonal knowl edge. See Fed. R.

Evi d. 801( c) advi sor y commi t t ee' s not e ( " I f t he si gni f i cance of an

of f er ed st at ement l i es sol el y i n t he f act t hat i t was made, no

i ssue i s r ai sed as t o t he t r ut h of anyt hi ng asser t ed, and t he

st at ement i s not hear say. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bowl es, 751 F. 3d 35,

40 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( char act er i zi ng t hr eat s as "ver bal act s t hat

ar e not hear say" ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Di az, 597 F. 3d 56, 65

n. 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bel l omo, 176 F. 3d 580, 586

( 2d Ci r . 1999) ( "St at ement s of f er ed as evi dence of . . .

t hr eat s . . . , r at her t han f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed

t her ei n, ar e not hear say. " ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665

F. 3d 212, 230- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The gover nment f al l s back t o i t s mi sunder st andi ng of t he

hornbook rul e of evi dence t hat an out - of - cour t st atement may be

of f er ed t o "show t he ef f ect of t he wor ds spoken on t he l i st ener . "

See Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 270 F. 3d 83, 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( ci t i ng 5 Wei nst ei n' s Feder al Evi dence 801. 03[ 4] ( 2d ed. 1999) ) .


21/23

- 21 -

Si nce Hor t enci a was not t he i nt ended r eci pi ent of t he t hr eat , t he

ar gument goes, she coul d not t est i f y t o i t .

That i s i ncor r ect . The t est i mony her e was of f er ed t o

show t he ef f ect of t he wor ds spoken on t he l i st ener , Fel i z. Even

t hough Hor t enci a was not t he t ar get of t he t hr eat , she coul d st i l l

t est i f y that t he of f i cer made t he t hr eat eni ng st at ement and i t was

hear d by Fel i z. The f act f i nder can t hen i nf er t he ef f ect on Fel i z

f r omt hat t est i mony. See, e. g. , Bi egas v. Qui ckway Car r i er s, I nc. ,

573 F. 3d 365, 379 ( 6t h Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lambi nus, 747

F. 2d 592, 597 ( 10t h Ci r . 1984) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cl i ne, 570 F. 2d

731, 734- 35 ( 8t h Ci r . 1978) . The gover nment of f er s no case - - and

we ar e awar e of none - - suggest i ng t hat onl y t he l i st ener ( and not

an i ndependent over - hear er of a conver sat i on) may t est i f y t o an

out - of - cour t st at ement t hat i s r el evant t o t he l i st ener ' s st at e of

mi nd. I n any event , t he f or mul at i on "ef f ect of t he wor ds on t he

l i st ener " i s not a ri gi d hear say except i on, but an exampl e of a

"more common t ype[ ] of nonhear say ut t erance[ ] . " 2 McCor mi ck on

Evi dence 249 ( 7t h ed. 2013) . As we have al r eady expl ai ned, t hi s

st at ement i s a nonhear say ut t er ance because i t i s not bei ng used

t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed. 3

3 Ther e i s no saf e har bor f or t he gover nment i n t he f actt hat t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence do not gener al l y appl y i n


22/23

- 22 -

Gi ven t hat t he i mpr oper l y excl uded t est i mony was both

pl ausi bl e and si gni f i cant i n t hi s case, t he pr oper cour se was f or

t he di st r i ct cour t t o admi t t he evi dence and "gi ve i t such wei ght

as hi s j udgment and exper i ence counsel . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mat l ock,

415 U. S. 164, 175 ( 1974) . I n t he wr i t t en opi ni on, t he di st r i ct

cour t si mpl y sai d t hat t her e was " no evi dence" of coer ci on and,

whi l e "[ t ] her e may have been evi dence" of coer ci on bef or e t he

magi st r at e j udge, "si mi l ar evi dence was not r ei t er at ed i n t he

hear i ng bef or e t he under si gned. "4

I n l i ght of t hese mi sst eps, and our i nabi l i t y t o say

t hey wer e har ml ess, we r emand t o a di f f er ent di st r i ct cour t j udge

t o conduct a new suppr essi on hear i ng. See Si ms, 385 U. S. at 544;

see al so Mat l ock, 415 U. S. at 177- 78. "Of cour se, i f t he [ t r i al ]

cour t , at an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, r edet er mi nes t he f act s and

suppr essi on hear i ngs, see Uni t ed St at es v. Bunnel l , 280 F. 3d 46,49 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . I f anyt hi ng, t he i nappl i cabi l i t y of t heFeder al Rul es of Evi dence pr ovi de f ur t her suppor t f or why Hor t enci ashoul d have been permi t t ed t o t est i f y about what she hear d, becauset he evi dence was cl ear l y rel evant .

4 The government argues t hat any err or i n excl udi ngHort enci a' s t est i mony was harml ess, because t he j udge f ound t he

pol i ce of f i cer s t o be gener al l y mor e cr edi bl e t han Fel i z' s mot herand st ep- f at her . But t he di st r i ct cour t di d not f i nd Fel i z' sf ami l y ent i r el y i ncredi bl e, and i t di d not make any f i ndi ng orgi ve any r eason f or why i t woul d di sbel i eve t hemhad t hey t est i f i edon t he subj ect of t he vol unt ar i ness of Fel i z' s conf essi ons.Rat her , i t sai d t her e was no evi dence of coer ci on.


23/23

- 23 -

deci des t hat [ Fel i z' s] conf essi on was i nvol unt ar y, t her e must be

a new t r i al on gui l t or i nnocence wi t hout t he conf essi on' s bei ng

admi t t ed i n evi dence. " J ackson, 378 U. S. at 394.

I I I .

We vacat e t he order denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess,

vacat e t he j udgment of convi ct i on, and r emand f or f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Upon r emand, t he case

shal l be assi gned t o a di f f er ent j udge f or a new pr oceedi ng.

So or der ed.

Documents

United States v. Feliz, 1st Cir. (2015)