United States v. Feliz - 794 F.3d 123 (1st Cir. 2015)

Rule:

The Constitution prohibits admission of a coerced confession to prove a defendant's guilt. Accordingly, in federal courts, trial judges are tasked with determining the voluntariness of a confession before trial. 18 U.S.C.S. § 3501(a). The voluntariness inquiry probes the physical and psychological environment that yielded the confession, a purely legal question.

Facts:

Defendant, Victor Manuel Feliz, a youth with no prior record, was convicted in December 2012 of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). His conviction was based largely on two written confessions. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the confessions as involuntary, being induced by threats made to him as to repercussions to his mother and his younger siblings if he did not confess. The magistrate judge heard testimony from two police officers that the confessions were freely made, and, contrarily, from defendant and his mother that the government had dictated to him his confessions, which he signed, after officers threatened his mother with deportation and his siblings with being put into state custody. The magistrate judge then recommended that the confessions be suppressed as involuntary. Plaintiff, the government, filed objections as to the judge's factual finding that the statements were dictated and the conclusion that the statements were involuntary. The district court excluded the defense testimony about the circumstances of the confessions involving police pressure as hearsay.

Issue:

Were the confessions made by the defendant voluntary?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court cannot conclude that the confessions were voluntary, because the district court erroneously excluded from consideration the critical evidence to the contrary. The court held that the district court improperly excluded the testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 801 because it was both plausible and significant; the testimony was offered to show the effect of the words spoken on the listener, defendant, and the court curtailed the record when it excluded the mother's testimony that she heard a police officer threaten defendant with the deportation of his mother and state custody for his siblings. The judgment was then vacated the order denying the motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction; the case was remanded for further proceedings.