# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 18 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pat ric k J on Ever s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 6, 2 01 8
Fil ed : Ap ril 25 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

App el la nt Pat ric k Evers was an em pl oyee of th e Uni te d Stat es Po st al Serv ic e (Po st al Serv ic e) who be ga n rece iv in g w o r k e r s co m pe ns at io n be ne fit s aft er a ba ck

in jury in 20 10 . The Po st al Serv ic e ev en tu al ly be cam e su sp ic io us of Eve rs ' wor ke rs

co m pe ns at io n el ig ib il it y , an d th e Po st al Serv ic e Offi ce of In sp ect or G e n e r al (OIG)

in it ia te d an in ve st ig at io n. An OIG in ve st ig at or po se d as a Po st al Serv ic e vo cat io na lreh ab il it at io n co un se lo r an d in te rvie w ed E ve rs w ith th e st at ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g

whe th e r he co ul d ev er ret ur n to wor k or be el ig ib le fo r vo cat io na l reh ab il it at io n.

Dur in g th is ta pe d "ru se in te rv ie w," Eve rs m ad e a nu m be r of st at em en ts de sc rib in g hi s weig ht li fti ng ha bi ts

. Dur in g a su bs eq ue nt se ve n ho ur in te rv ie w by OIG in ve st ig at or s,

Eve rs ad m it te d th at he ha d no t to ld th e tru th ab ou t hi s weig ht li fti ng ro ut in e du rin g th e

ru se in te rv ie w.

A jury co nv ic te d Eve rs of on e fel on y co un t of m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to

ob ta in fed eral em

pl oyees co m

pe ns at io n, 18 U.S.C. § 19 20

. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t 1
reject ed Eve rs ' ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce an d de ni ed hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s t he co nf

es si on he m ad e to OIG in ve st ig at or s. Ev ers ap pe al s.

Fi rs t, Eve rs arg ue s th at t h e r e w as in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s

co nv ic ti on be cau se hi s fal se st at em en ts were no t " mat e r i a l

, " an d ev en if th ey ha d

be en , th ey ha d no t cau se d a lo ss of m or e th an $1 ,00 0. W e rev ie w su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce "i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

go ve rn m en t

. . . [,] acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce th at

su pp or t th e jury's ve rd ic t." Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 51 9 F.3 d 81 6

, 8 2 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The el em en ts of th e fel on y cri m e of m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to ob ta in fed eral

wor ke rs co m

pe ns at io n are: (1 ) kn owi ng ly and wil lfu ll y m ak in g a fal se st at em en t of

fact or co nc eal in g or cov eri ng up a fact ; (2) th at is m at eri al ; (3) m ad e in co nn ect io n
wit h an ap pl ic at io n fo r or rece ip t of wor ke rs co m pe ns at io n be ne fit s; (4 ) in ex ces s of

$1 ,00 0. § 19 20

. " [ I ]f th e am ou nt of th e be ne fit s fal se ly ob ta in ed do es no t ex ceed

$1 ,00 0," th e cri m e is a m is de m ean or

. Id

. A fal se st at em en t is m at eri al if, "v ie wed

al on e," it ha s "a na tu ral te nd en cy to in flu e n ce, or [b e] cap ab le of in flu en ci ng , th e

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-de ci si on of th e de ci si on m ak in g bo dy to whi ch it was ad dr es se d." Uni te d St at es v.

W hi ta ke r, 84 8 F.2 d 91 4, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (fi rs t qu ot at io n ) ; U n it ed St at es v.

Gau di n, 51 5 U.S. 50 6, 50 9 (1 99 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (s eco nd qu ot at io n)

. "M at eri al it y
do es no t req ui re pr oo f th at th e go ve rn m en t act ua ll y rel ie d on th e st at em en t." Uni te d

St at es v. Bak er, 20 0 F.3 d 55 8, 56 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). "A fal se st at em en t can be m at eri al

ev en if th e ag en t to who m it is m ad e kn ows th at it is fal se ." W h i ta ke r, 84 8 F.2 d at

91 6.

W e co nc lu de a reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d Eve rs ' fal se st at em en ts to be

m at eri al

. The OIG in ve st ig at or who co nd uc te d th e ru se in te rv i e w t e s t i f ie d th at if

Eve rs ha d be en ho ne st du rin g th e in te rv ie w, sh e wou ld ha ve ta ke n st ep s to he lp hi m

ge t ba ck to wor k whi ch wou ld ha ve le d to a cu rta il m en t of hi s wor ke rs co m pe ns at io n
be ne fit s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Sl at on , 80 1 F.3 d 13 08

, 13 15 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 15 )
(u ph ol di ng a jury ve rd ic t ba se d on fal se st at em en ts m ad e t o an OIG in ve st ig at or
du rin g a r u s e in te rv ie w). Add it io na ll y , th e Dep art m en t of Lab or (DOL) cl ai m s

ex am in er as si gn ed to th e Eve rs cas e te st ifi ed th at t h e e x t e nt of Eve rs ' weig ht li fti ng

wou ld ha ve be en rel ev an t to th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er he was el ig ib le fo r wor ke rs

co m pe ns at io n. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. W al dr en , 43 1 F. App 'x 37 4, 37 6- 77 (6 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th e r e w a s ev id en ce of m at eri al it y whe n a DOL cl ai m s ex am in er

te st ifi ed th at th e ap pl ic an t's act iv it ie s wou ld ha ve be e n r el ev an t be cau se th ey

in di cat ed he ha d sk il ls ap pl ic ab le to ot he r job s)

. The e v id en ce was su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t t he jury ve rd ic t as to m at eri al it y

.

The re w a s al so su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at Eve rs ' fal se st at em en ts cau se d a lo ss

gr eat er th an $1 ,00 0

. A f

te r th e ru se in te rv ie w, Eve rs rece iv ed te ns of th ou sa nd s of

do ll ars in wor ke rs co m

pe ns at io n be n e f

i t s. W e co nc lu de th e jury co ul d ha ve

reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at if Ev e r s h a d no t li ed du rin g th e ru se in te rv ie w, h e co ul d

h a v e r e t u r ne d to wor k in so m e cap aci ty an d wou ld no t ha ve co nt in ue d to rece iv e
be ne fit s wel l i n e xc es s o f $1 ,00 0.

-3

-Seco nd

, Eve rs arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s

hi s co nf es si on , whi ch he arg ue s was in vo lu nt ary. "Where a co ur t de ni es a m ot io n to

su pp res s st at em en ts

, we rev ie w it s fact fin di ng un de r a cl earl y erro ne ou s st an da rd

. . . . [an d] th e co ur t's ap pl ic at io n o f la w to th os e fact s de no vo ." Uni te d St at es v. J on es , 27 5 F.3 d 67 3, 67 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). "We wil l affi rm th e di st ri c t c o u r t 's de ni al of a

m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d

on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of app li cab le la w, or , ba se d on th e en ti re reco rd

, it is

cl ear t ha t a m is ta ke was m ad e." Id . at 6 78 -7 9.

In vo lu nt ary st at em en ts are in ad m is si bl e at tri al fo r an y pu rp os e. Mi ch ig an v.

Harv ey , 49 4 U.S. 34 4, 35 1 (19 90 ). A st at em en ts is vo lu nt ary if it is "t he pr od uc t of

an es se nt ia ll y free an d un co ns tra in ed ch o i c e by it s m ak er." Sch ne ck lo th v.

Bu st am on te

, 41 2 U.S

. 21 8, 22 5 (1 97 3) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In a no n- cu st od ia l

in te rv ie w, a st at em en t is in vo lu nt ary whe n, ba se d on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , "i t was e x t r a c t e d by th reat s, vi ol en ce, or ex pr es s or im pl ie d pr om is es su ffi ci en t to

ov erb ear th e de fen da nt 's wi l l a nd cri ti cal ly im pa ir hi s cap aci ty fo r se lfde te rm in at io n." Uni te d St at es v. LeBru n, 36 3 F.3 d 71 5, 72 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc )
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. To de te rm in e whe th er a st at em en t was in vo lu nt a r y, " [ t ]h e co ur t

m us t lo ok at th e 'co nd uc t of the of fic ers an d th e ch arac te ris ti cs of th e accu se d.'" Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce

th at a ch al le ng ed st at em en t was vo lu nt ary. Id.

The di st ric t cou rt di d no t clea rly err in co nc lu di ng th at Eve rs ' co nf es si on was

vo lu nt ary. It was no t cl ear e rro r to co nc lu de Ever s was no t p art ic ul arl y su sc ep ti bl e

to ha vi ng hi s wil l ov erb or ne —h e is 53 y ears ol d, a hi gh sc ho ol gr ad ua te

, li te rat e an d

un de rs ta nd s Eng li sh

, an d ha s no is su es wit h m en ta l facu lt ie s. Nor was it cl ear erro r

to co nc lu de th e in ve st ig at or s' act iv it ie s were no t co erci ve or ov erre ach in g. Alt ho ug h

th e in te rv ie w to ok m an y ho ur s, Eve rs dr ov e hi m se lf to it an d recei ve d and in it ia le d

a Garri ty warn in g. See Si m m on s v. Bo wers ox , 23 5 F.3 d 11 24

, 11 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )
("Qu es ti on in g a su sp ect fo r si x or se ve n ho ur s is no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly co erci ve pe r

-4

-se ."). By hi s own acco un t, Eve rs fel t free to le av e th e co nf eren ce ro om bu t rem ai ne d

fo r "d am ag e co nt ro l." Inv es ti ga to rs ne ve r di sp la y ed weap on s or ha nd cu ffs an d di d

no t bl oc k th e do or

. In st ead

, th ey to ld Eve rs he co ul d le av e at an y ti m e an d wou ld no t

be arre st ed at th e en d of th e in te rv ie w. Eve rs was of fere d f o o d

, w a te r, an d br eak s.

He de sc rib ed th e to ne of th e in te rv ie w as "co rd ia l." Thu s it w a s no t cl ear erro r to

de ny his m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is co nf es si on

.

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-