N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JASON A. W R IGHT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10215

D.C . No. 4:03-c r-01908-R C C
C RP-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JASON A. W R IGHT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10664

D.C . No. 4:03-c r-01908-R C C
C RP-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED JAN 14 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd REINHAR

DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s . Ja son W right a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for posse ssion of c hild pornogra p hy unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(5)(B ) and his se n te nc e of tim e se rve d a nd thre e y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se with spe c ia l se xoffe nde r c onditions. W e a ffirm his
c onvic tion, but re ve rse som e of the spe c ia l te rm s of his supe rvise d re le a se . B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . 1 I The distric t c ourt did not im prope rly a dm it sta

te m e n ts m a d e by

Wright to la w e nforc e m e n t offic e rs during thee xe c ution of a se a rc h wa rrant a t his hom e . W e re vie w the de nia l of a

m otion to suppre ss denov o and the distric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing fa c t

ua l findings for c le ar e rror. U nite d State

s v . C raighe ad , 539 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th C ir. 2008). In doing so, we a c c o rd “ spe c ia l de fe re nc e to the distric t c o urt’ s c re dibility de te rm inations” re ga

rding te stim ony . Id. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha t Wright wa s a dvise d of his Miranda rights a

nd at no tim e a ske d to spe a k with a la wy e r. Assum ing,

1 The gove rnm e nt withdre w its Nove m be r 12, 2014 m otion to re sc he dule ora l argum e nt the subse que nt da y , a c knowle d ging tha

t it wa s e rrone ously

file d. W e dism i ss the m otion. -2-without de c iding, tha t the offic e rs m a de an im

pe rm i ssible prom ise to W right whe n the y told him he would not be arre ste d no m a tte r what he sa i d, the distric t c ourt did not e rr in de te rm ining tha t Wright’ s will wa s not ove rborne by the offic e rs’ sta te m e nts or a c tions. W e look to the

tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s whe n e va luat ing whe t he r sta te m e nts m a de in a

c ustodia l inte rrogation we re give n volunta rily
. Se e Unite d State s v . Pre ston , 751 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). “ V olunta

rine ss de pe nds on suc h fa c tors a s the surrounding c irc um sta nc e s and the c om

bine d e ffe c t of the e ntire c ourse of the offic e rs’ c onduc t upon thede fe nda n t.” He nry

v . K e rnan , 197 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th C ir. 1999). He re , Wright te stifie d tha t he be lie v e d tha

t he would be ta

ke n a way no m a tte r what he sa id in thec ar. 2 The re fore , e ve n if the a ge nts’ re m arks a re inte rpre te d a s a

prom ise

— or a

thre a t— the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in im plic itly c onc luding tha

t Wright did not ta

ke the m at fa c e va lue and did not re ly

2 The disse nt a

rgue s tha t the distric t c o urt re

je c t e d a l l of W

right’ s te stim ony a s not c re dible . Howe ve r, the c ourt’ s orde r did not pre se nt its finding in a bsolute te rm s. Insom

uc h a s the orde r provide d a ba s is for its c re dibility de te rm ination, it re je c te d Wright’ s spe c i fic te stim ony re ga rding a c t ions ta

k e n a nd sta te m e nts m a de by him se lf a nd the offic e rs during thec ourse of his inte rvie w. The orde r did not dire c tly a ddre ss W

right’ s te stim ony

re ga rding his sta

te of m ind, a

n d we c onc lude that those portions of his te s tim ony c ontribute d to the distric t c o urt’ s finding tha

t Wright’ s will wa s not ove rborne
. -3-on the m

a s suc h in m a king his sta

te m e nts. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing the s uppre ssion m otion. II Suffic i e nt e vide nc e for the m e ns re a e le m e nt of § 2252A(a

)(5)(B ) supports Wright’ s c onvic tion. W

right a dm itte d tha

t he kne w his c om

pute r file s c onta ine d
c hild pornogra

phy . M any of the file s on W right’ s c om

pute r ha d be e n orga

niz e d into subfolders tha

t ne c e ssa rily we re c re a te d

by a use r who vie we d the c h ild pornogra phy in orde r to c l a ssify

it. W e de fe r to the jury ’ s de te rm ination tha t suffic i e nt e vide nc e supports a c onvic tion so long a s, “ ‘ a fte r vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the prose c ution, any ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.’ ” Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ) (quoting J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). III A pre vious pa

ne l of this C ourt de te rm i ne d tha t two pote ntia l e rrors in Wright’ s tria l—

the e xc lusion of e vide nc e pointing to a n a lte rnative pe rpe trator a nd prose c utoria l m isc onduc t i n the c losing sta te m e nt— we re not individua

lly pre j udic i a l. Unite d State

s v . W right , 625 F.3d 583, 604–13 (9th C ir. 2010). Nor
we re the s e e rrors c um

ulative l y pre

judic i a l. A finding of cum ulative e rror re quire s -4-that

“ the c om bine d e ffe c t of m

ultipletria l e rrors . . . re nde rs a tria l funda

m e nta lly unfa ir.” Parle

v . Runne ls , 505 F.3d 922, 928 (9th C ir. 2007). Thepa ne l in W right
c onc lude d tha

t m ost of thepote ntia lly

e xc lude d e vide nc e wa s we a k or c um ulative , and tha t the im pe rm issiblesta

te m e nts by the prose c utor we re a ll e ithe r “ fa irly
m ild” or m itiga

te d by de fe nse c ounse l’ s re butta l or the jury instruc t ions. 625 F.3d
a t 609, 613. Any

pre judic ia l im

pa c t of the e rrors in c om

bina tion doe s not a

m ount to a due p roc e s s viola

tion. IV W e re vie w the re a sona

ble ne s s of Wright’ s se nte n c e for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Apodac a , 641 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th C i r. 2011). The thre e -y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e d wa s not proc e dura lly or substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. Howe ve r, five spe c ia l c onditions of W right’ s re le a se are ove rly

broa d or othe rwise
unre a s ona

ble
. C onditions 4, 7, 8, 9, a

nd 13 a re substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble . The first four of the se c onditions re stric t Wright from , am ong othe r things, posse ssing a ny

“ se xua lly stim ulat ing” m a te ria l , ha

v ing a ny c onta c t with c hildre n

unde r e ighte e n y e ars old (inc luding, it se e m s, fam ily m e m be rs), e nga g ing in a

ny busine ss or volunte e r a c tivity

in whic h he ha s e v e n the pote ntia l to be a lone with c h ildre n, a nd using a ny inte ra c tive we b s ite
. The se prosc riptions e nc om pa ss a wide array

of -5-a c tivitie s a

n d de prive Wright of fa

r m ore libe rty

tha n is re a s ona

b ly ne c e ssa ry to
a c c om plish thegoa ls of se nte nc ing. Se e Unite d State s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1101–02 (9th C ir. 2012); se e also United State s v . W e be r , 451 F.3d 552, 557–58 (9th C ir. 2006). C ondition 13, whic

h forbids W

right from using a lc ohol, is a lso substa ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble . The re is no ba sis to c onc lude tha t it “ be ars a re a sona ble re lat ionship to re ha bilita ting theoffe n de r, prote c ting thepublic , or providing a de q uate de te rre nc e .” Unite d State

s v . Be tts , 511 F.3d 872, 878 (9th C ir. 2007).

AFFIRM E D IN PART ; VACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART .

-6-Unite d

State s v . W right , No. 12-10215 R EINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a n d disse nting in pa

rt. I join thec ourt’ s de c i sion e xc e pt for the pa rt holding tha

t Wright’ s c onfe s sion wa s volunta

ry . The re is no que stion tha t Wright wa s prom i se d tha t he would not be

arre s te d no m a tte r what he sa id during his inte rrogation. W

he the r this
m e ant tha t he would not be

prose c ute d is a

m a tte r we ne e d not de c ide . Eithe r way the p rom i se wa s suc h a s would invalida te Wright’ s c onfe ssion if it wa s the c a use of his c onfe ssing. To the

e xte nt tha

t the distric t

c o urt a sse sse d

Wright’ s c re dibility , it
re je c te d his te stim ony

in a ll re spe c ts. It m a de no e xc e ption for his sta te m e nt tha

t he thought hewa s going to be ta ke n a way re ga rdle ss of wha

t he sa id. B e c a

use the distric t c o urt m a de no e xpre ss finding on tha t point, its fac t

ua l findings, or lac k of fa c t ua l findings, a s to the e ffe c t of the gove rnm e nt’ s unla wful prom ise on W

right
re nde r it im

possibleto c onc lude tha

t the gove rnm e nt c arrie d its burde n to prove by
a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e tha t Wright’ s sta

te m e n t wa s volunta

ry . Se eUnite d State s v . W illiams , 435 F.3d 1148, 1153 n.5 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ The gove rnm e nt
m ust prove volunta

rine ss by a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e .” (c iting Le go v . Tw o me y , 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972))). At a m i nim um , we should re m and for the distric t c o urt to m ake a d ditiona l fa c tua l findings. 1 Pre fe ra bly , howe ve r, we should 

# F IL ED JAN 14 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 The m a jority sa y s tha t the distric t c ourt re lie d on W right’ s te stim ony re ga rding his sta

t e of m ind in finding tha

t his will wa s not ove rborne . Thissim

ply do our job a s a

c ourt of a

ppe a ls a nd re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt be c a use it wa s wrong.

c onc lusion is in no m

anne r justifie d by

what the distric t c ourt sta te d. The distric t c ourt sa id nothing wha

t s oe ve r a bout whe the r Wright’ s will wa s ove rborne and inde e d did not e ve n a

ppe ar to find tha

t the prom ise wa s unla

w ful. The be s t tha

t c an be sa id for the distric t c ourt’ s findings is tha t the y are tota lly

ina de quate .