Opinion ID: 2632408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Neutron Proton [Negligence Intelligence Test

Text: During the second interview, the officers conducted what they told defendant was called the Neutron Proton Negligence Intelligence Test. As we have described, this test was a sham. When the officers indicated that the test was positive, and that defendant had fired a gun recently, defendant repeatedly and vehemently denied ever shooting a gun. After the test was given, and defendant had been told that the result was positive for gunshot residue, defendant recanted the portion of his statement implicating the two unnamed men; according to defendant, only he and Joseph were involved, and Joseph had been the shooter. Defendant now contends that the officers' use of a sham test was a deceptive tactic that rendered defendant's incriminating statements involuntary. Police deception does not necessarily invalidate an incriminating statement. ( People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 411, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) Courts have repeatedly found proper interrogation tactics far more intimidating and deceptive than, those employed in this case. (See, e.g., Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 [officer falsely told the suspect his accomplice had been captured and confessed]; People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 949 P.2d 890 [officer implied he could prove more than he actually could]; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 167, 266 Cal.Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857 [officers repeatedly lied, insisting they had evidence linking the suspect to a homicide]; In re Walker (1974) 10 Cal.3d 764, 777, 112 Cal. Rptr. 177, 518 P.2d 1129 [wounded suspect told he might die before he reached the hospital, so he should talk while he still had the chance]; People v. Watkins (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 119, 124-125, 85 Cal.Rptr. 621 [officer told suspect his fingerprints had been found on the getaway car, although no prints had been obtained]; and Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart (9th Cir.1997) 121 F.3d 486, 495 [suspect falsely told he had been identified by an eyewitness].) Indeed, at least one Court of Appeal has approved of the particular practice used in this case. ( People v. Partisan (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529, 537,187 Cal.Rptr. 123 [police falsely told suspect a gun residue test produced a positive result].) After examining the circumstances surrounding the Neutron Proton Negligence Intelligence Test, it does not appear that the tactic was so coercive that it tended to produce a statement that was involuntary or unreliable. In any event, we also note that the officers' tactic in using the fake test was unsuccessful in eliciting a confession; defendant never confessed to having been the shooter, but instead steadfastly denied having shot the gun. Defendant contends that the deceptive tactic, though unsuccessful in eliciting a confession to firearm use, coerced him into revising his story and telling police that the two other men he had implicated were not involved. However, it is evident that the test was designed to elicit a confession related to firearm use. The absence or presence of the two men has little relation to whether defendant shot a firearm on the night of the murders.