Opinion ID: 399380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: pressure to admit guilt

Text: 71 The defendants contend that at the sentencing hearing, the district court improperly pressured them to admit their guilt, and then imposed a heavier sentence because they failed to do so. Because of these alleged improprieties, the defendants urge that they are entitled to resentencing. We conclude that the district court did not improperly pressure the defendants to admit their guilt, and did not impose a heavier sentence for their failure to do so. 72 Before imposing sentence, the district court gave each defendant the opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf. The following exchange occurred between Roe and the district court: 73 ROE: The only thing I would like to say, Your Honor, is that I'm just extremely sorry. Thank you. 74 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Roe, you apparently, although you did not testify in the case, had taken a position, at least it was the theory of your attorney, that you were honest business men and involved in a venture and the venture failed and that was basically what happened. Is that still your feeling about this? 75 ROE: Yes, Your Honor, it really is. 76 Supp. Record on Appeal at 14. No such exchange occurred between Tietjen and the district court, although Tietjen did make a statement in his own behalf. 77 After imposing sentence, and just after determining whether trial counsel would represent the defendants on appeal, the district court addressed both defendants as follows: 78 THE COURT: ... Let me say this, gentlemen. I'm a little disappointed at this procedure at this stage to see that both of you feel that you're two honest business men to try the business, the business failed and that's the reason for all these problems. The evidence in this case of your guilt was overwhelming. There is no question as to lies, deceit and deception by both of you gentlemen. You talked, Mr. Tietjen, about all the people that suffered and lost. I didn't hear you mention all of these so-called investors. And these are the people that really lost. The evidence is replete with the use of false names, the lies, deception, and if this is honest business, we're all in a lot of trouble. I say I'm disappointed because the first sign of rehabilitation is the acceptance of the fact that you've done wrong, you're sorry for it and you want to make a new life. I saw no evidence of that in you, Mr. Roe. 79 Mr. Tietjen, at least you have changed to some degree, and I hope that what you say concerning your new life with your new wife is sincere and that you have accepted that and that you are going to try to make a new life. I seriously hope that you'll be able to do that. 80 Supp. Record on Appeal at 27-28. The defendants do not point to any other portion of the transcript to support their arguments that the district court improperly pressured them to admit their guilt or improperly imposed a heavier sentence for their failure to do so. 81 A sentencing court has wide discretion as to the factors it may consider in imposing the sentence. Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 556, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 1362, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980). However, the sentencing court may not present the defendant with a choice between admitting his guilt and enduring a harsher sentence for failing to do so. United States v. Wright, 533 F.2d 214, 216 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Laca, 499 F.2d 922, 927 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F.2d 302, 312-13 (5th Cir. 1974); Thomas v. United States, 368 F.2d 941, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1966). We cannot agree with the defendants' characterization of the district court's comments. The district court did not pressure either defendant to admit his guilt before imposing sentence. As to Roe, the district court merely asked whether Roe adhered to the theory of innocence advanced to the jury by Roe's attorney. After Roe responded affirmatively, the district court did not pursue the matter. We cannot view such a meager exchange to rise to the level of improper pressure to admit guilt. As to Tietjen, the district court never asked him whether he also maintained his innocence. Thus, Tietjen was never even faced with the problem of whether to admit or to deny his guilt. 82 The district court also did not penalize either defendant for failing to admit guilt. Although the imposition of a sentence that is less than the maximum statutory term is not dispositive of the issue, United States v. Wright, 533 F.2d 214, 216 (5th Cir. 1976), we note that the defendants each received a sentence that is one/seventh of what the district court could have imposed. After pronouncing sentence, the district judge indicated his disappointment with the defendants' failure to accept that they had done wrong, which the district court perceived as the first sign of rehabilitation. However, the full force of this comment applied only to Roe. As to Tietjen, the district court observed that Tietjen had changed to some degree. The district court's post-sentence comment here is quite similar to a district court's comment in another case, in which the sentence imposed was upheld. United States v. Rowen, 594 F.2d 98, 101-02 & n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 834, 100 S.Ct. 67, 62 L.Ed.2d 44 (1979). In Rowen, the sentencing judge indicated his feeling that the defendant was guilty and his regret that (the defendant) wouldn't admit it, even though found guilty. Id. at 101 n.1. The judge in Rowen also stated that: 83 (T)he trouble is that she (the defendant) is not rehabilitated. That is really the trouble. She won't admit it. 84 Id. In light of Rowen, we cannot say that the district court here improperly pressured the defendants to admit their guilt or, in determining sentence, improperly considered the defendants' failure to do so. 85 We do not view United States v. Laca, 499 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1974), to require a different result. In Laca, the sentencing judge expressly considered, in passing sentence, the lack of any inclination toward repentance on the defendants' part, and expressly stated that the judge would favorably consider a motion for sentence reduction only if the defendants' attitude change(d) and if the defendants tried to clear up these matters. Id. at 927. In contrast, the district judge here indicated only his personal disappointment with the defendants' failure to accept that they had done wrong, and made this comment almost as an aside, after determining whether the defendants would need new counsel for their appeal. Without a stronger indication that in determining sentence, the district court considered the defendants' failure to admit guilt, we are not inclined to grant resentencing. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not improperly pressure the defendants to admit their guilt and did not improperly impose a harsher sentence for their failure to do so. 86 For the reasons discussed above, the convictions are AFFIRMED.