Opinion ID: 778658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to suppress Jose Meza's videotaped confession

Text: 55 Jose Meza argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and thereafter admitting, his videotaped confession of March 26, 1998. He argues that he was intoxicated when he gave the statement and, as such, despite being given a Miranda warning, his confession was not the product of his free and rational choice and he did not freely and voluntarily waive his constitutional rights to counsel and silence. 56 In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress a confession, we give credence to the credibility choices and fact finding by the district court unless they are clearly erroneous, but the ultimate issue of voluntariness is a legal question reviewed de novo.  33 Likewise, a district court's determination regarding the validity of a defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights is a question of law reviewed de novo, but this court accepts the factual conclusions underlying the district court's legal determination unless they are clearly erroneous. 34 57 We have rejected a challenge similar to Jose Meza's in United States v. Garcia Abrego, 35 wherein the defendant argued that that the drugs that Mexican officials administered to him, coupled with the solicitousness of U.S. law enforcement officials, rendered his custodial statement involuntary. 36 There, we concluded that [t]he record contains ample evidence from which the district court could conclude that the drugs that Mexican authorities administered to Garcia Abrego did not impair his mental capacity and that Dr. Coleman's testimony that Garcia Abrego did not appear impaired and evinced none of the symptoms of a Valium overdose, together with the testimony of the officers who interviewed Garcia Abrego that he appeared in no way impaired, provided an adequate basis for the district court's conclusion that Garcia Abrego's mental capacity was not impaired as a result of the drugs that he had been administered earlier in the day. 37 We further observed that the district court was free to accord great weight to the testimony of those individuals who actually observed Garcia Abrego prior to his interview with law enforcement authorities. 38 58 Similarly, here, Jose Meza presented his own testimony that he did some speed about an hour before being taken into custody and that he did not remember being arrested or being read a Miranda warning. He also testified that he had been arrested and read Miranda warnings several times previously and understood his rights each time. Jose Meza also presented the testimony of a licensed chemical dependency counselor who testified that, based on a review of portions of the videotaped statement, Jose Meza appeared to be on some kind of amphetamine. 59 The government presented the testimony of Billy Meeks, an experienced Plano Police Department detective who interviewed Jose Meza and who had prior dealings with him. Meeks testified that he read Jose Meza a Miranda warning and that Jose responded that he understood and that he was willing to talk. Meeks also testified that there was no indication that Jose Meza was under the influence of any controlled substance and that, when asked prior to the interview, Jose Meza stated that he had last used cocaine or heroin eleven days before. Meeks further testified that Jose Meza was not in handcuffs, was not threatened or made any promises, and was aware of questions asked and was responsive. 60 The district court also viewed portions of the videotape itself. It then found that: the interview took place one hour after arrest; Jose Meza was informed of the charges and read a Miranda warning; no coercion was used and no promises were made; and Jose Meza looked alert on the videotape, was lucid and responsive, was quite articulate talking to Meeks and answering Meeks's questions, and appeared to be understanding the conversation, despite occasionally yawning and scratching himself. On the strength of these findings, which we conclude were not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the government proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jose Meza voluntarily confessed and validly waived his Fifth Amendment rights following a Miranda warning. 39 As such, we affirm the district court's denial of Jose Meza's motion to suppress his videotaped statement.