United States v. Jacques, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Jacques, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1016

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MI CHAEL J ACQUES,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udge.

Br i an J . Kel l y, by appoi nt ment of t he cour t , f or appel l ant .Randal l E. Kr omm, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Mar ch 11, 2014

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t he Supr emeCour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/23

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a seven- hour

i nt er r ogat i on i n whi ch he conf essed par t i ci pat i ng i n t he ar son of

an Af r i can- Amer i can chur ch, Mi chael J acques was convi ct ed i n

f eder al cour t of conspi r acy agai nst ci vi l r i ght s, damage t o

r el i gi ous r eal pr oper t y, and t he use of a f i r e t o commi t a f el ony.

On appeal , J acques ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

admi t t i ng hi s s t at ement s i nt o evi dence because agent s obt ai ned hi s

conf essi on t hr ough coer ci ve means and i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght t o

pr ompt pr esent ment . For t he r easons bel ow, we af f i r m.

I. Facts and Background

On the morni ng of November 5, 2008, hour s af t er Barack

Obama was el ect ed t o be the next Presi dent of t he Uni t ed St ates,

t he Macedoni a Chur ch of God i n Chr i st i n Spr i ngf i el d,

Massachuset t s, bur ned t o t he gr ound. St i l l i n t he mi ddl e of

const r uct i on, t he chur ch was bei ng bui l t f or a pr edomi nant l y

Af r i can- Amer i can congr egat i on. I t was appr oxi mat el y 75% compl et e

at t he t i me of t he f i r e.

The Nat i onal Response Team f or t he Bureau of Al cohol ,

Tobacco, Fi r earms, and Expl osi ves ( ATF) concl uded t hat t he f i r e was

del i ber at el y set and t hat gasol i ne had been used t o i gni t e t he

bui l di ng. I t subsequent l y convened a j oi nt t ask f or ce wi t h t he

Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( FBI ) , t he Spr i ngf i el d Pol i ce

Depar t ment , and t he Massachuset t s Stat e Pol i ce ( MSP) t o i nvest i gat e

t he i nci dent . When a ci vi l i an wi t ness not i f i ed i nvest i gat or s of

-2-


3/23

t wo men boast i ng about t hei r i nvol vement i n t he chur ch arson, t he

t ask f or ce homed i n i t s i nvest i gat i on on Benj ami n Haskel l and

Mi chael J acques.

Soon af t er r ecei vi ng t he t i p, l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s

ar r anged t o have t he ci vi l i an wi t ness i nt r oduce Haskel l t o

undercover St at e Trooper Henot Ri vera. Worki ng under t he name

" J os, " Tr ooper Ri ver a made t hr ee cont r ol l ed pur chases of nar cot i cs

f r om Haskel l , one of whi ch t ur ned out t o be a f ake bag of her oi n.

" J os" t hen t ol d Haskel l t hat he coul d compensat e f or t he bot ched

dr ug deal by hel pi ng wi t h a pur por t ed i nsur ance scam - -

speci f i cal l y, by bur ni ng down a house i n Spr i ngf i el d and an

abandoned pr oper t y i n Hol yoke, Massachuset t s. On J anuary 14, 2009,

whi l e dr i vi ng t o Hol yoke t o sur vey t he al l eged ar son si t e, " J os"

encour aged Haskel l t o descr i be hi s cr edent i al s as an ar soni st . I n

a r ecor ded conver sat i on, Haskel l conf i ded t o Tr ooper Ri ver a t hat he

and J acques had commi t t ed t he chur ch ar son i n November . Ar med wi t h

t hese st at ement s, l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s i nt er vened and

t r anspor t ed Haskel l t o a pol i ce i nt er vi ew r oom, wher e he conf essed

t o commi t t i ng t he chur ch arson wi t h t he hel p of J acques and t wo

ot her i ndi vi dual s. Haskel l agr eed t o cooper at e i n t he cont i nued

i nvest i gat i on of t he chur ch f i r e.

The f ol l owi ng eveni ng, J anuar y 15, 2009, t he t ask f or ce

coor di nated a meet i ng between Haskel l , J acques, and Trooper Ri ver a,

i n whi ch " J os" i nvi t ed J acques t o j oi n t he i nsur ance scam. Bot h

-3-


4/23

i n the pr esence of Tr ooper Ri ver a and dur i ng a pr i vat e conver sat i on

wi t h Haskel l , J acques made i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s concer ni ng hi s

i nvol vement i n t he chur ch arson. J acques' s st atement s were caught

on t ape by the t ask f orce, whi ch t hen detai ned J acques and

t r anspor t ed hi m t o an i nt er vi ew r oom f or quest i oni ng.

J acques ar r i ved at t he MSP' s of f i ces i n Spr i ngf i el d and

was escor t ed by agent s f r om t he vehi cl e at 7: 16 p. m. Hi s

quest i oni ng commenced at approxi mat el y 7: 20 p. m. , when he knowi ngl y

wai ved hi s Mi r anda r i ght s. J acques' s i nt er r ogat i on l ast ed

appr oxi mat el y si x hour s and thi r t y mi nut es and was vi deot aped i n

i t s ent i r et y.

The i nter r ogat i on was conduct ed pr i mar i l y by Stat e

Tr ooper Mi chael Mazza, al t hough FBI Speci al Agent I an Smyt he was

pr esent dur i ng t he f i r st hour s and agai n t owar d t he end of t he

quest i oni ng. Over t he cour se of t he i nt ervi ew, Mazza and Smyt he

empl oyed var i ous i nt er r ogat i on t act i cs f r omt he "Rei d t echni que. " 1

They exaggerat ed t he st r ength of t he evi dence agai nst J acques,

mi sr epr esent ed t he i nvol vement of hi gh- pr of i l e f eder al agent s i n

t he case, mi ni mi zed t he magni t ude of J acques' s al l eged cr i mi nal

conduct , i nt er r upt ed J acques' s at t empt s t o deny hi s gui l t , and

suggest ed t hat J acques' s cont i nued r esi st ance woul d subj ect hi mt o

more damni ng medi a coverage. Repeat edl y, t he agent s i nf ormed

1 The "Rei d t echni que" i s a met hod of i nt er r ogat i on pi oneer ed byJ ohn E. Rei d and Associ at es, ai med at ext r act i ng conf ess i ons andeval uat i ng suspect credi bi l i t y.

-4-


5/23

J acques t hat an honest conf ess i on mi ght l ead t o sof t er t r eat ment by

t he pr osecut or and t he sent enci ng j udge, whi l e a f ai l ur e to

cooper at e was l i kel y t o r esul t i n t he maxi mumsent ence. They al so

r emar ked on t he f ai l i ng heal t h of J acques' s el der l y f at her ,

suggest i ng t hat cont i nued r esi st ance mi ght depr i ve J acques of

cruci al year s wi t h hi s f ami l y.

Throughout t he i nt er vi ew, J acques was per mi t t ed t o t ake

bat hr oom, wat er , and ci gar et t e br eaks upon r equest . Havi ng

pr evi ousl y f aced char ges on sever al cr i mi nal mat t er s, J acques was

al so awar e of hi s r i ght t o ask f or t he i nt er r ogat i on t o cease,

al t hough at no poi nt di d he do so. He di d, however , cont i nue t o

deny hi s i nvol vement i n t he f i r e t hr oughout t he i nt er r ogat i on,

cl ai mi ng t hat hi s i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s t o t he under cover

t r ooper were merel y an at t empt t o make hi msel f " l ook bi gger . "

At 1: 17 a. m. , j ust under si x hour s f r om t he t i me

J acques' s i nter r ogat i on began and j ust over si x hours f r omt he t i me

he was t aken i nt o cust ody, Mazza asked J acques t o "si gn somethi ng

f or [ hi m] r eal qui ck" and handed J acques a wai ver of hi s r i ght t o

prompt presentment . Mazza r ead t he document al oud and expl ai ned

t he r equi r ement t hat a def endant must be arr ai gned wi t hi n si x hour s

of det ent i on. When J acques asked Mazza t o cl ar i f y pr eci sel y what

he was si gni ng, Mazza r epl i ed t hat t he document meant t hat "you

don' t want t he quest i oni ng t o st op and be br ought t o cour t or

anyt hi ng l i ke t hat , t hat you' r e wi l l i ng t o st i l l t al k t o me. "

-5-


6/23

J acques si gned t he document at r oughl y 1: 20 a. m. Appr oxi mat el y

hal f an hour l at er , J acques t ook anot her ci gar et t e br eak. When he

r et ur ned t o the i nt er r ogat i on r oom at ar ound 1: 45 a. m. , J acques

admi t t ed hi s i nvol vement i n t he chur ch ar son. J acques expl ai ned

t hat he chose t o conf ess because Mazza had "pr oved" t he charges and

"w[ as] honest t o me. "

J acques was ar r ai gned l at er t hat mor ni ng. He was

ul t i mat el y char ged wi t h conspi r acy agai nst ci vi l r i ght s i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 241, damage or dest r uct i on t o r el i gi ous

r eal pr oper t y i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 247( c) , and use of a

f i r e t o commi t a f el ony i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 844( h) ( 1) .

Fol l owi ng hi s ar r ai gnment , J acques moved to suppr ess t he

i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s made i n hi s conf essi on. J acques ar gued

t hat t he conf essi on was i nvol unt ar y because t he agent s' coer ci ve

t act i cs had over bor ne hi s wi l l and t hat hi s wai ver of hi s r i ght of

pr esent ment was nei t her t i mel y nor knowi ng under f ederal l aw. The

di st r i ct cour t t ook i n abundant br i ef i ng and numer ous days of

t est i mony, dur i ng whi ch J acques t est i f i ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat

he underst ood t he natur e of hi s r i ght t o pr esent ment and wai ved

t hat r i ght t o "have a chance t o cont i nue expl ai ni ng" hi s i nnocence,

" r at her t han goi ng i nt o cour t r i ght away and bei ng char ged wi t h a

cr i me. " The di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y deni ed t he mot i on t o

suppr ess. On Apr i l 14, 2011, J acques was convi ct ed by a j ur y of

-6-


7/23

al l t hr ee char ges. On May 9, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued a

memor andum expl ai ni ng i t s r ul i ng on J acques' s mot i on t o suppr ess.

J acques now appeal s t o t hi s cour t .

II. Discussion

I n consi der i ng a chal l enge t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al

of a mot i on t o suppr ess, we r evi ew t he cour t ' s l egal concl usi ons de

novo and i t s f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v.

Mej a, 600 F. 3d 12, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . 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. Uni t ed St at es v. Hughes, 640 F. 3d 428, 438 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) .

A. Coercive Interrogation

The Fi f t h Amendment r i ght agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on

pr ohi bi t s cour t s f r om admi t t i ng i nt o evi dence a def endant ' s

i nvol unt ar y conf essi on. Di cker son v. Uni t ed St at es, 530 U. S. 428,

433 ( 2000) . I n assessi ng whet her a conf essi on i s vol unt ar y, cour t s

must i nqui r e "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 . " Br yant

v. Vose, 785 F. 2d 364, 367- 68 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( quot i ng Pr ocuni er v.

At chl ey, 400 U. S. 446, 453 ( 1971) ) . We det er mi ne t he vol unt ar y

nat ur e of t he st at ement s by consi der i ng " t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng bot h t he 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. " Hughes, 640 F. 3d at 438. Rel evant

consi der at i ons i ncl ude t he l engt h and nat ur e of t he quest i oni ng,

-7-


8/23

pr omi ses or t hr eat s made by i nvest i gat or s, and any depr i vat i on of

t he suspect ' s essent i al needs. I d. They al so i ncl ude the

def endant ' s per sonal ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng hi s age, educat i on,

i nt el l i gence, and ment al condi t i on, i d. , as wel l as hi s pr i or

exper i ence wi t h t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em, see Uni t ed St at es v.

J ackson, 608 F. 3d 100, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Roj as- Tapi a, 446 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . A def endant ' s cal m

demeanor and t he l uci di t y of hi s st at ement s wei gh i n f avor of

f i ndi ng hi s conf essi on vol unt ar y. Roj as- Tapi a, 446 F. 3d at 8.

Numer ous f act s i n t he recor d i ndi cat e t hat J acques

pr ovi ded hi s conf essi on knowi ngl y and vol unt ar i l y. A def endant i n

mul t i pl e cr i mi nal mat t er s i n t he past , J acques was exper i enced wi t h

t he j ust i ce syst em. Thr oughout t he i nt er r ogat i on and hi s

subsequent conf essi on, J acques r emai ned cal mand pr ovi ded a l evel -

headed account of hi s i nvol vement i n t he ar son. Hi s deci si on t o

conf ess was not a sudden or i mmedi ate response t o any of t he

agent s' quest i ons or t hr eat s, i ndi cat i ng t he agent s' coer ci ve

i mpact , but r at her came af t er a ci gar et t e br eak dur i ng whi ch

J acques was r el i eved of al l i nt er r ogat i on. Perhaps most

i mpor t ant l y, J acques hi msel f expl ai ned hi s deci si on t o conf ess

based on hi s bel i ef t hat Mazza had "pr oved" t he al l egat i ons and had

been "honest " wi t h hi m.

I n t he f ace of t hi s evi dence, J acques cl ai ms t hat Mazza

and Smyt he' s coer ci ve i nt er r ogat i on t echni ques over bor e hi s wi l l i n

-8-


9/23

vi ol at i on of t he Fi f t h Amendment . We f i nd t hat none of t he

al l egedl y coer ci ve t act i cs i dent i f i ed by J acques, ei t her

i ndi vi dual l y or t oget her , suf f i ce t o show t hat J acques' s conf essi on

was i nvol unt ar y.

1. Threats of Retaliation

I t i s wel l set t l ed i n t he Fi rs t Ci rcui t t hat an of f i cer

does not i mper mi ssi bl y over bear a def endant ' s wi l l by pr omi si ng t o

br i ng t he def endant ' s cooper at i on t o the pr osecut or ' s at t ent i on or

by suggest i ng t hat cooperat i on may l ead t o more f avorabl e

t r eat ment . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Bal dacchi no, 762 F. 2d 170,

179 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ; see al so J ackson, 608 F. 3d at 103. Whi l e t he

r ul es gover ni ng an agent ' s t hr eat s of har sher puni shment i n

exchange f or a def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o cooper at e i s l ess set t l ed,

t hi s cour t has hel d t hat t hr eat s of r et al i at i on ar e j ust one f actor

r el evant t o eval uat i ng t he vol unt ar i ness of a conf essi on. Uni t ed

St at es v. J ackson, 918 F. 2d 236, 242 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( "Congr ess and

t he cour t s have i ndi cat ed t hat t o det er mi ne vol unt ar i ness i t i s

necessar y t o l ook at t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng

any pr omi ses or t hr eat s made by pol i ce of f i cer s or t he pr osecut i on,

i n or der t o see whet her t he wi l l of t he accused was over bor ne. " ) ;

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n- Ram r ez, No. CR- 08- 220- E, 2009 WL

928103, at *5 (D. I daho Apr . 2, 2009) ( " [ I ] f a def endant has had no

pr evi ous exper i ence wi t h cr i mi nal l aw coupl ed wi t h f act s t hat she

was thr eat ened wi t h adver se consequences f or l ack of cooperat i on

-9-


10/23

and had no f r i end or advi sor dur i ng t he t i me of conf essi on, ar e

f act or s t hat shoul d be consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng whet her a

def endant ' s conf essi on was vol unt ar y. " ) . Accor di ngl y, f eder al

cour t s consi der i ng t he t ot al i t y of t he evi dence have repeat edl y

f ound t hat an i nt er r ogat or ' s t hr eat s of a har sher pr i son sent ence

i f a def endant f ai l ed t o cooper at e di d not suf f i ce t o over bear t he

def endant ' s wi l l . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. J enki ns, 214 F.

App' x 678, 680 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng t hat , " [ i ] n t he absence of

ot her coer ci ve pr essures, " an agent ' s s t at ement s t hat "he woul d

advi se t he pr osecut or i f Wi l l i am cooper at ed or i f he r ef used t o

cooper at e" " do not ent ai l t he concl usi on t hat Wi l l i am' s st at ement s

wer e i nvol unt ar y") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mei r ovi t z, 918 F. 2d 1376, 1379

( 8t h Ci r . 1990) ( f i ndi ng a conf essi on vol unt ar y wher e agent s

of f er ed " t hr eat s of a l ong pr i son sent ence i f [ t he def endant ]

f ai l ed t o cooperate, " but no evi dence showed t hat def endant was

"especi al l y suscept i bl e t o pol i ce pr essur e") .

J acques poi nt s t o a ser i es of Ni nth Ci r cui t cases

suggest i ng t hat an agent ' s t hr eat s of r et al i at i on aut omat i cal l y

r ender an ensui ng conf essi on i nvol unt ar y. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Casi l l as, 538 F. App' x 751, 751- 52 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( "We have

r epeat edl y f ound t hat a t hr eat of har sher t r eat ment r ender s any

subsequent conf essi on i nvol unt ar y. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Har r i son, 34

F. 3d 886, 891- 92 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) ( " [ T] her e ar e no ci r cumst ances i n

whi ch l aw enf or cement of f i cer s may suggest t hat a suspect ' s

-10-


11/23

exer ci se of t he r i ght t o r emai n si l ent may r esul t i n har sher

t r eat ment by a cour t or pr osecut or . " ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Mel ni kas, 929 F. Supp. 276, 281 ( S. D. Ohi o 1996) ( "Thr eat eni ng t o

i nf or m t he cour t or a pr osecut or of a suspect ' s r ef usal t o

cooper at e i n or der t o el i ci t such cooper at i on vi ol at es an

i ndi vi dual ' s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght t o remai n si l ent and i s cl ear l y

coer ci ve. ") . Thi s i s not t he pr evai l i ng r ul e i n our ci r cui t .

Fur t her mor e, even t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has mor e r ecent l y qual i f i ed

t hat i t s "di sappr ov[ al ] . . . of an i nt er r ogat or ' s t hr eat s t o t el l

t he pr osecut or about a def endant ' s r ef usal t o cooper at e . . . does

not amount t o a cat egor i cal r ul e. " J enki ns, 214 F. App' x at 680

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n gr eat er har mony wi t h our own r ul e, t he

Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s cases hol di ng t hat an agent ' s t hr eat s of

r et al i at i on vi ol at ed t he Fi f t h Amendment i nvol ved si gni f i cant

addi t i onal i ndi ci a of coer ci on. See, e. g. , Har r i son, 34 F. 3d at

892 ( f i ndi ng a def endant ' s conf essi on i nvol unt ar y wher e t he

def endant "br oke her si l ence onl y af t er t he agent asked whether she

t hought i t pr ef er abl e i f t he j udge wer e i nf or med t hat she had

cooper at ed or not cooper at ed, " i ndi cat i ng a st r ong coer ci ve

i mpact ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ti ngl e, 658 F. 2d 1332, 1336 ( 9t h Ci r .

1981) ( f i ndi ng a def endant ' s conf essi on i nvol unt ar y wher e t he

agent s t hr eat ened t o communi cat e her l ack of cooperat i on t o t he

pr osecut or and warned t hat def endant woul d not see her t wo- year ol d

chi l d "f or a whi l e") .

-11-


12/23

I n t hi s case, t her e i s no evi dence suggest i ng t hat Mazza

and Smyt he' s t hr eat s of a harsher sent ence i n exchange f or

J acques' s r ef usal t o cooper at e had any meani ngf ul i mpact on

J acques' s conduct dur i ng t he i nter r ogat i on. Unl i ke pr i or cases

wher e agent s' t hr eat eni ng or mani pul at i ve st at ement s i nspi r ed

demonst r abl e anxi et y i n t he def endant s, see, e. g. , Ti ngl e, 658 F. 2d

at 1334, Mazza and Smyt he r epeat ed t hei r t hr eat s numerous t i mes

over t he cour se of a si x hour i nt er r ogat i on wi t hout any

i dent i f i abl e ef f ect on J acques. Si mi l ar l y, unl i ke pr evi ous

def endant s who expl i ci t l y i dent i f i ed t he t hr eat of r et al i at i on as

t hei r r easons f or conf essi ng, see, e. g. , Har r i son, 34 F. 3d at 892,

J acques expl ai ned hi s deci si on t o conf ess wi t hout r ef er ence t o any

of t he agent s' al l eged t hr eat s. Whi l e t hese t hr eat s ar e cer t ai nl y

r el evant t o a det er mi nat i on of vol unt ar i ness, i n l i ght of t he

ent i r e r ecor d t hey f ai l t o est abl i sh t hat J acques' s wi l l was

overborne.

2. Preying on Family Feeling

Thi s ci r cui t r ecogni zes t hat psychol ogi cal dur ess may

suf f i ce to over bear a def endant ' s wi l l so as t o make subsequent

st at ement s i nadmi ssi bl e. J ackson, 608 F. 3d at 102- 03. Accor di ngl y,

st at ement s t hat a def endant ' s r ef usal t o cooper at e may l ead t o an

extended separ at i on f r omhi s or her l oved ones may cont r i but e t o a

f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant ' s conf essi on was coer ced. See, e. g. ,

Lynumn v. I l l i noi s, 372 U. S. 528, 534 ( 1963) ( f i ndi ng t he

-12-


13/23

def endant ' s conf essi on i nvol unt ar y wher e " t he pet i t i oner ' s or al

conf essi on was made onl y af t er t he pol i ce had t ol d her t hat st at e

f i nanci al ai d f or her i nf ant chi l dr en woul d be cut of f , and her

chi l dr en t aken f r om her , i f she di d not ' cooper at e, ' " among ot her

f act or s) ; Ti ngl e, 658 F. 2d at 1336 ( f i ndi ng conf essi on i nvol unt ar y

wher e agent s made def endant " f ear t hat , i f she f ai l ed t o cooper at e,

she woul d not see her young chi l d f or a l ong t i me") .

However , t he mere f act t hat a def endant i s pl aced "under

some psychol ogi cal pr essur e" by agent s does not necessar i l y r ender

a conf essi on i nvol unt ar y. Uni t ed St at es v. J obi n, 535 F. 2d 154,

159 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) . I n J ackson, f or exampl e, t hi s ci r cui t r ef used

t o f i nd t hat a def endant ' s conf essi on was i nvol unt ar y on t he basi s

of pol i ce of f i cer s' t hr eat s t o char ge hi s si st er wi t h a cri me i f he

di d not cooperate. 918 F. 2d at 242. Di st i ngui shi ng Lynumn and

Ti ngl e, we not ed t hat t hose ear l i er cases i nvol ved "mot her s . . .

coer ced by thr eat s t hat t hei r chi l dr en woul d be t aken f r om t hem"

and i ncl uded evi dence that t he def endants "may have been more

suscept i bl e t o psychol ogi cal coer ci on" t han ot her suspect s. I d. ;

cf . Ti ngl e, 658 F. 2d at 1336 ( emphasi zi ng t he "pr i mor di al and

f undament al " rel at i onshi p of a mot her t o her chi l d) . Absent

evi dence t hat t he def endant i n J ackson had "an especi al l y cl ose

r el at i onshi p" wi t h hi s si st er or "was unusual l y suscept i bl e t o

psychol ogi cal coer ci on on t hat account or any ot her , " we f ound t hat

t he "t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances" f ai l ed t o suggest t hat hi s wi l l

-13-


14/23

was over bor ne. J ackson, 918 F. 2d at 242; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Char l t on, 565 F. 2d 86, 89 ( 6t h Ci r . 1977) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

def endant ' s conf essi on was vol unt ar y despi t e agent s' t hr eat s t o

ar r est hi s son, of whomdef endant "was hi ghl y pr ot ect i ve, " because

a desi r e t o pr ot ect a rel at i ve "does not , i n our j udgment , r ender

hi s conf essi on i nvol unt ar y or necessi t at e a f i ndi ng t hat he was

coer ced") .

I n t hi s case, Agent Mazza made a si ngl e ref er ence t o

J acques' s f at her ' s heal t h several hours bef or e J acques deci ded t o

conf ess. J acques' s demeanor at t he t i me of hi s conf essi on di d not

mani f est any not abl e psychol ogi cal or emot i onal anxi et y i n response

t o Mazza' s s t at ement , nor does t he recor d i ncl ude any i ndi ci a that

J acques was par t i cul ar l y suscept i bl e t o mani pul at i on. Under t he

t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, t he recor d does not suggest t hat

Mazza' s appeal t o J acques' s f ami l y f eel i ng had a coer ci ve i mpact on

t he def endant ' s conf essi on.

3. Other Claims

Fi nal l y, J acques cl ai ms t hat Mazza and Smythe over bor e

hi s wi l l t hr ough t hei r use of t he "Rei d t echni que, " i ncl udi ng

exagger at i ng t hei r evi dence and mi ni mi zi ng t he gr avi t y of hi s

suspect ed of f ense, i n obt ai ni ng a conf essi on.

Ext r eme f orms of decept i on or chi canery by t he pol i ce may

be suf f i ci ent t o r ender a conf essi on i nvol unt ar y. Hughes, 640 F. 3d

at 439. Never t hel ess, " t he use of chi caner y does not aut omat i cal l y

-14-


15/23

under mi ne t he vol unt ar i ness of a conf essi on. " I d. Thi s cour t has

consi st ent l y recogni zed t hat "some degr ee of decept i on . . . dur i ng

t he quest i oni ng of a suspect i s per mi ssi bl e. " I d. ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Boski c, 545 F. 3d 69, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( r eaf f i r mi ng "t he

pr oposi t i on . . . t hat ' conf essi ons pr ocur ed by decei t s have been

hel d vol unt ar y i n a number of si t uat i ons' " ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Byram, 145 F. 3d 405, 408 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) .

Speci f i cal l y, "a conf essi on i s not consi der ed coer ced

mer el y because t he pol i ce mi sr epr esent ed to a suspect t he st r engt h

of t he evi dence agai nst hi m. " Cl ant on v. Cooper , 129 F. 3d 1147,

1158 ( 10t h Ci r . 1997) ; see al so Fr azi er v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739

( 1969) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he pol i ce' s "mi sr epr esent [ at i ons] " of a

co- def endant ' s al l eged i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s wer e, "whi l e

r el evant , i nsuf f i ci ent i n our vi ew t o make t hi s ot her wi se vol unt ar y

conf essi on i nadmi ssi bl e. " ) ; Hol l and v. McGi nni s, 963 F. 2d 1044,

1051 ( 7t h Ci r . 1992) ( f i ndi ng "t he f act t hat t he of f i cer

mi sr epr esent ed . . . t he st r engt h of t he evi dence" t o be "one

f act or t o consi der among t he t ot al i t y of ci r cumst ances i n

det er mi ni ng vol unt ar i ness" ) ; Gr een v. Scul l y, 850 F. 2d 894, 903 ( 2d

Ci r . 1988) ( f i ndi ng pol i ce of f i cer ' s "asser t [ i on] t hat he al r eady

had a st r ong case agai nst pet i t i oner " i nsuf f i ci ent t o r ender t he

ensui ng conf essi on i nvol unt ar y) . As t he Sevent h Ci r cui t has not ed,

"[ o] f t he numer ous var i et i es of pol i ce t r i cker y, . . . a l i e t hat

-15-


16/23

r el at es t o a suspect ' s connect i on t o t he cr i me i s t he l east l i kel y

t o r ender a conf essi on i nvol unt ar y. " Hol l and, 963 F. 2d at 1051.

I n t hi s case, t he agent s' st at ement s exagger at i ng t he

qual i t y of t hei r evi dence, mi ni mi zi ng t he gr avi t y of J acques' s

of f ense, and emphasi zi ng t he negat i ve medi a at t ent i on that woul d

at t end J acques' s tr i al al l f al l saf el y wi t hi n t he r eal m of t he

per mi ssi bl e "chi caner y" sanct i oned by t hi s and ot her cour t s.

J acques poi nt s t o no f eder al aut hor i t y suppor t i ng a f i ndi ng of an

i nvol unt ar y conf essi on under si mi l ar ci r cumst ances. The one case

ci t ed by J acques, Commonweal t h. v. Baye, 967 N. E. 2d 1120 (Mass.

2012) , i s a st at e cour t deci si on t hat i s nei t her bi ndi ng on t hi s

cour t nor di r ect l y anal ogous on t he f act s. See i d. at 1130 ( not i ng

i n suppor t of i t s f i ndi ng t hat t he agent s "mi schar act er i zed t he l aw

of mur der , f el ony- mur der , and acci dent " and "di ssuaded" t he

def endant when he asked t o consul t an at t orney) . Consi dered i n t he

f ul l ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, Mazza and Smyt he' s i nt er r ogat i ve

t act i cs di d not amount t o coer ci on i n vi ol at i on of J acques' s Fi f t h

Amendment r i ght s.

B. Right to Prompt Presentment

J acques f ur t her chal l enges t he admi ssi bi l i t y of hi s

conf essi on on t he gr ound t hat hi s i nt er r ogat i on vi ol at ed hi s r i ght

t o prompt presentment .

Under t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, a

def endant who has been ar r est ed wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es i s

-16-


17/23

ent i t l ed t o be br ought "wi t hout unnecessar y del ay bef or e a

magi st r at e j udge. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 5( a) ( 1) ( A) . The r i ght of

speedy pr esent ment not onl y checks t he l i kel i hood of coer ci ve

quest i oni ng, but al so avoi ds "al l t he evi l i mpl i cat i ons of secret

i nt er r ogat i on of per sons accused of cr i me. " Cor l ey v. Uni t ed

St ates, 556 U. S. 303, 307 ( 2009) ( quot i ng McNabb v. Uni t ed St ates,

318 U. S. 332, 344 ( 1943) ) . Present ment i s "t he poi nt at whi ch t he

j udge i s r equi r ed t o t ake several key st eps t o f or ecl ose Government

over r eachi ng: i nf or mi ng t he def endant of t he char ges agai nst hi m,

hi s r i ght t o r emai n si l ent , hi s r i ght t o counsel , t he avai l abi l i t y

of bai l , and any r i ght t o a pr el i mi nar y hear i ng; gi vi ng t he

def endant a chance t o consul t wi t h counsel ; and deci di ng between

det ent i on or rel ease. " I d. at 320. To pr ot ect t hi s r i ght , t he

McNabb- Mal l or y rul e est abl i shed by t he Supr eme Cour t st i pul at es

t hat conf essi ons made dur i ng a per i od of det ent i on t hat vi ol at es

t he pr ompt pr esent ment r equi r ement of Rul e 5( a) are general l y

i nadmi ssi bl e i n f eder al cour t s. I d. at 309; Uni t ed St at es v.

Al var ez- Sanchez, 511 U. S. 350, 354 ( 1994) .

Fol l owi ng t he Supr eme Cour t ' s ar t i cul at i on of t he

McNabb- Mal l or y excl usi onar y r ul e, Congr ess enact ed 18 U. S. C. 3501

t o cr eat e a saf e har bor per i od f or cer t ai n vol unt ar y conf essi ons.

See Cor l ey, 556 U. S. at 309 ( di scussi ng l egi sl at i ve hi st or y and

i nt ent of 3501) . Wi t h r espect t o Rul e 5( a) ' s r equi r ement of

speedy pr esent ment , 3501( c) pr ovi des t hat "a conf essi on . . .

-17-


18/23

shal l not be i nadmi ssi bl e sol el y because of del ay i n br i ngi ng such

per son bef or e a magi st r at e j udge or ot her of f i cer . . . i f . . .

such conf essi on was made or gi ven by such person wi t hi n si x hour s

i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng hi s ar r est or ot her det ent i on. " 18 U. S. C.

3501( c) . The sect i on f ur t her pr ovi des t hat i t s si x- hour cut - of f

"shal l not appl y i n any case i n whi ch t he del ay i n br i ngi ng such

per son bef or e such magi st r at e j udge . . . i s f ound by the t r i al

j udge t o be r easonabl e consi der i ng t he means of t r anspor t at i on and

t he di st ance t o be t r avel ed t o the near est avai l abl e such

magi st r at e j udge or ot her of f i cer . " I d.

J acques si gned a wai ver of hi s r i ght t o prompt

pr esent ment at 1: 20 a. m. , f our mi nut es past 3501( c) ' s saf e har bor

per i od. He now cont ends t hat , because hi s wai ver was unt i mel y

under 3501( c) , hi s subsequent conf essi on i s i nadmi ssi bl e under

McNabb- Mal l or y. Speci f i cal l y, J acques i nsi st s t hat the del ay

cannot be deemed " r easonabl e" because 3501( c) r ecogni zes an

except i on t o i t s s i x- hour wi ndow onl y f or del ays caused by

t r anspor t at i on or t r avel consi der at i ons, nei t her of whi ch appl y t o

t hi s case. 2

J acques' s ar gument mi sconst r ues t he si gni f i cance of

3501( c) ' s saf e har bor . Sect i on 3501( c) does not pr ovi de t hat al l

2 The par t i es addi t i onal l y di sput e whet her J acques was wi t hi n"f eder al cust ody" dur i ng hi s i nt er r ogat i on so as t o t r i gger t heappl i cat i on of 18 U. S. C. 3501( c) . Because we can r esol veJ acques' s chal l enge based on t he r easonabl eness of t he f our - mi nut edel ay, we need not r each t hi s i ssue.

-18-


19/23

conf ess i ons gat her ed beyond i t s s i x- hour wi ndow aut omat i cal l y or

even pr esumpt i vel y vi ol at e Rul e 5( a) ' s r i ght of pr esent ment

"wi t hout unnecessar y del ay. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 5( a) ( 1) ( A) . Rat her ,

i t set s up a t wo- par t i nqui r y f or t hat r i ght . Fi r st , t he secti on

cr eat es a saf e- har bor f or vol unt ar y st at ement s t hat ar e r ecei ved

ei t her wi t hi n si x hour s of a def endant ' s det ent i on, or wi t hi n a

l onger per i od deemed r easonabl e i n l i ght of t r avel or

t r anspor t at i on di f f i cul t i es. Cor l ey, 556 U. S. at 322 ( "I f t he

conf essi on came wi t hi n t hat per i od, i t i s admi ssi bl e . . . . ") .

Wher e a vol unt ar y conf essi on f al l s beyond t he saf e har bor ,

3501( c) t hen r equi r es a cour t t o determi ne whether t he del ay was

never t hel ess reasonabl e or necessar y under McNabb- Mal l or y. I d.

( " I f t he conf essi on occur r ed bef or e pr esent ment and beyond si x

hour s, however , t he cour t must deci de whether del ayi ng that l ong

was unr easonabl e or unnecessar y under t he McNabb- Mal l ory cases, and

i f i t was, t he conf essi on i s t o be suppr essed. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

McDowel l , 687 F. 3d 904, 909 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ( "A conf essi on gi ven

out si de t he si x- hour per i od i s al so admi ssi bl e under 3501( c) i f

t he cour t f i nds t he conf essi on was vol unt ar y and t he del ay i n

pr esent ment was r easonabl e. " ) .

The r i ght of prompt present ment does not cr eat e a

"mechani cal or aut omat i c" dut y f or of f i cer s t o ar r ai gn def endant s

upon ar r est . Mal l or y v. Uni t ed St at es, 354 U. S. 449, 455 ( 1957) .

Rat her , " [ c] i r cumst ances may j ust i f y a br i ef del ay" wher e t hat

-19-


20/23

del ay i s based on r easonabl e or l egi t i mat e gr ounds. I d. A del ay

" i s unr easonabl e and unnecessary when i t i s ' of a nat ur e to gi ve

oppor t uni t y f or t he ext r act i on of a conf essi on. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Gar c a- Hernndez, 569 F. 3d 1100, 1106 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng

Mal l ory, 354 U. S. at 455) . However , a del ay may be r easonabl e i f

caused by admi ni st r at i ve concer ns, such as t he unavai l abi l i t y of a

magi st r at e f ol l owi ng an ar r est , see, e. g. , i d. at 1106; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 484 F. App' x 449, 457- 58 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ,

cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 994 ( 2013) , or by a shor t age of per sonnel ,

Garc a- Hernndez, 569 F. 3d at 1106; Uni t ed St ates v. Sal amanca, 990

F. 2d 629, 633 ( D. C. Ci r . 1993) . Fur t her mor e, a pur el y de mi ni mi s

del ay past 3501( c) ' s si x- hour l i mi t at i on may not necessar i l y

r ai se any pr ocedur al concer ns. See Uni t ed St at es v. Or opeza- Fl or es,

230 F. 3d 1368 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) .

Based on t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, Agent Mazza' s

br i ef del ay i n acqui r i ng J acques' s wai ver of hi s r i ght t o

pr esent ment was not "unr easonabl e and unnecessary" so as t o mer i t

suppr essi on of hi s st atement s under McNabb- Mal l ory. 3 Assumi ng t hat

3 The gover nment al so suggest s t hat 3501( c) ' s si x- hourl i mi t at i on on an i nt er r ogat i on pr i or t o pr esent ment does not appl yt o a def endant ' s wai ver . By t he gover nment ' s t heor y, whi l e t heprosecut i on may not i nt r oduce any st at ement s made bet ween t he

t er mi nat i on of t he si x- hour saf e har bor and t he def endant ' s wai verof hi s r i ght t o pr esent ment , i t can r el y on any st at ement s madef ol l owi ng a knowi ng wai ver , no mat t er when t he wai ver occur r ed.Thi s ar gument woul d drai n t he r i ght of prompt present ment of anysubst ance. A necessar y extensi on of t he gover nment ' s t heor y i st hat f eder al agent s coul d i nt er r ogat e a def endant f or si x hour s andt hen, i nst ead of br i ngi ng hi m bef or e a magi st r at e, det ai n hi m f or

-20-


21/23

J acques' s det ent i on began t he moment he was escor t ed f r om t he

vehi cl e at 7: 16 p. m. , Mazza pr esent ed J acques wi t h a wai ver one

mi nut e past t he si x- hour wi ndow and J acques si gned t hat wai ver f our

mi nut es past t hat wi ndow. The ext r emel y mi nor margi n by whi ch

Mazza exceeded t he saf e harbor and hi s prompt br eak i n quest i oni ng

unt i l J acques s i gned t he wai ver suggest t hat Mazza di d not

pur posef ul l y i gnor e 3501( c) f or t he i mpr oper goal of cont i nui ng

an unr est r i ct ed i nt er r ogat i on. Nor , consi der i ng t he unavai l abi l i t y

of a magi st r at e j udge at t he t i me of J acques' s i nt er r ogat i on, do

t he ci r cumst ances suggest t hat Mazza wi l l f ul l y def aul t ed on hi s

hour s or days l onger i n t he hopes t hat he wi l l event ual l y choose t owai ve pr esent ment and cont i nue t he i nt er r ogat i on. Such a pr act i cewoul d avoi d al l t he est abl i shed pr ocedur al benef i t s of pr esent ment ,i ncl udi ng " i nf or mi ng t he def endant of t he char ges agai nst hi m, hi sr i ght t o r emai n si l ent , hi s r i ght t o counsel , t he avai l abi l i t y ofbai l , and any r i ght t o a pr el i mi nar y hear i ng. " Cor l ey, 556 U. S. at320.

-21-


22/23

dut y t o t ake J acques f or pr ompt arr ai gnment . 4 Mor e l i kel y, t hey

suggest a mi nor and ul t i mat el y har ml ess mi scal cul at i on of t he t i me.

Fi nal l y, J acques ar gues t hat hi s wai ver i s i nval i d

because i t was not obt ai ned knowi ngl y, i nt el l i gent l y, and

vol unt ar i l y. See McDowel l , 687 F. 3d at 910 ( not i ng t hat a wai ver

of pr ompt present ment must be knowi ng and vol unt ary) .

Speci f i cal l y, J acques i nsi st s t hat Agent Mazza mi sr epr esent ed t he

nat ur e of hi s Rul e 5( a) r i ght s by suggest i ng t hat t he wai ver woul d

hel p J acques by f or est al l i ng char ges, whi l e i t i n f act benef i t t ed

t he i nvest i gat or s by al l owi ng t hemt o cont i nue i nt er r ogat i on. Thi s

ar gument f i nds no suppor t i n t he r ecor d. The t r anscr i pt of t he

i nt er r ogat i on r eveal s t hat Mazza accur at el y expl ai ned t he cont our s

of J acques' s r i ght t o pr esent ment , i ncl udi ng t he oppor t uni t y t o

come bef ore a j udge, t o have counsel appoi nt ed hi m, and t o be

admi t t ed t o bai l . J acques' s t est i mony at hi s suppr essi on hear i ng

4 J acques i nsi st s t hat t he unavai l abi l i t y of a magi st r at e cannotbe used t o j ust i f y pr ol ongi ng an i nt er r ogat i on. Taken t o i t sext r eme, he not es, t he pr act i ce woul d al l ow agent s t o ci r cumvent 3501( c) at any t i me by ar r est i ng suspect s at ni ght or overweekends. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mi ddl et on, 344 F. 2d 78, 82 ( 2d Ci r .1965) ( " [ T] he unavai l abi l i t y of a Commi ssi oner does not l i cense t hepol i ce t o cont i nue t hei r i nt er r ogat i on t hr ough t he ni ght . ") . Unl i keMi ddl et on, however , t hi s si t uat i on i s not one wher e agent s t ook theunavai l abi l i t y of a magi st r at e as an excuse t o "cont i nue t hei r

i nt er r ogat i on t hr ough t he ni ght . " Rat her , i t i s one wher e agent spr oper l y i nf or med J acques of hi s r i ght t o t er mi nat e t hei nt er r ogat i on and pr esent ed hi m wi t h a f or mal wai ver when t hei rsi x- hour saf e har bor expi r ed. I n consi der at i on of t he r ecor d, t heagent s' mi nor mi scal cul at i on does not const i t ut e an unnecessar y andunr easonabl e del ay i n vi ol at i on of J acques' s r i ght t o pr omptpresentment .

-22-


23/23

conf i r med t hat , as a vet er an of t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em, he was

f ami l i ar wi t h t he r i ght of present ment . Fur t her mor e, J acques

admi t t ed t hat he chose t o si gn t he wai ver t o "have a chance t o

cont i nue expl ai ni ng" hi s i nnocence i n or der t o di ssuade t he agent s

f r om f i l i ng f or mal char ges agai nst hi m. Based on J acques' s

t est i mony, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n concl udi ng t hat

J acques' s wai ver was knowi ng, i ntel l i gent , and vol unt ar y.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he deci si on of t he di st r i ct

cour t i s af f i r med.

Affirmed.

-23-

Documents

United States v. Jacques, 1st Cir. (2014)