Opinion ID: 2614597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threats and Promises

Text: ¶29 The district court found that the officers made significant references to defendant being charged with capital murder, the lethal consequences of being charged with capital murder, and the possibility of lesser charges being brought, depending on defendant's cooperation. We have recognized that an interrogation can be impermissibly coercive because [it] carried a threat of greater punishment or a promise for lesser punishment depending on whether [a defendant] confessed. Strain, 779 P.2d at 226. The district court, relying on Strain, found that the officers did not promise or guarantee a lesser charge if [the defendant] confessed. In reaching this conclusion, the district court focused on the fact that on several occasions the officers stated that they could not guarantee the sentence Rettenberger would receive if he confessed. In so finding, however, the district court glossed over the several occasions in which the officers strongly suggested that Rettenberger would not face the death penalty as long as he confessed to the crime. DETECTIVE CORBIN: Stay with me, okay. Stay with me. He  It shouldn't have happened, it was a mistake. A lot of things have taken place in the last three weeks since then. The man wants to turn things around, the man does not want to die. He does not want to face life in prison. He's got his entire life ahead of him. And we're going to make that life happen. . . . . DETECTIVE CORBIN: Now, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass. I'm not going to tell you that nothing's going to happen here. Stay with me. I'm not going to tell you that, oh hey, we're going to get you back home tomorrow. But you know what? We might get you back home at the end of the week, we might get you back home at the end of next week. . . . . DETECTIVE CORBIN: And I mean, it's like you said earlier, I could die, I could die. You don't have to die, okay? You don't have to spend the rest of your life in prison. We can get to the bottom of this thing, hear your version, we can sort it out from here. . . . . DETECTIVE CORBIN: Okay, explain to me everything that's happening, go through the whole thing. You won't have any questions, you won't have any fears. You already know what's the worst, and you won't have that. You'll know exactly what's happening. . . . . OFFICER TIMOTHY: You know, you made a mistake, yeah. You know, you did, you made a big screw up. But like we said, you didn't mean to do that. Yeah, you should do some time for the robbery, you know, you shouldn't have done that. You know better than that, you're smarter than that. (Emphasis added.) ¶30 Promises of leniency necessarily imply the threat of harsher punishment. On some occasions in the interrogations, that connection was made explicit: DETECTIVE CORBIN: Right now you're booked on a capital offense. Right now capital offenses are punishable by death, period. You're looking at lethal injection, okay? You're looking at a firing squad, what are the other choices, is that it? OFFICER TIMOTHY: Hanging. DETECTIVE CORBIN: Hanging, okay? So basically what you're talking about unless you're a macho guy, you're probably looking at lethal injection, okay? I don't think we even need to go there. You see what I'm saying? Let's just put that behind us, let's look at what really happened that night, and let's get this death row bullshit out of the way, and let's get you to a point where you're able to say, Hey look, okay, I'm cutting the bullshit. I know what happened, this is what happened. (Emphasis added.) ¶31 At points in the interrogations, the officers suggested to Rettenberger that the murder could be recast as a crime far less serious in nature than capital homicide. This tactic is effective at eliciting admissions for the same reason that more explicit promises of prosecutorial leniency work: because the interrogator communicates that the suspect will receive a reduced level of punishment ... if he admits to a description of the offense the interrogator finds acceptable. Ofshe & Leo, The Decision to Confess Falsely, at 999. In one form or another, the officers suggested that the murder was unintentional at least 39 times during the interrogations. Among other things, they told Rettenberger that the killing wasn't intentional; it started out as one thing, but things got out of hand; they knew he was not a murderer; the wounds from the gunshot shouldn't have been fatal; he didn't mean to kill anyone; he was not a bad person; you guys didn't mean for this to happen; the officers could explain to the judge that this thing wasn't premeditated; things got out of hand, he struggled with you guys; they knew Rettenberger didn't go in there with the intention of killing him. In short, they told him they believed the whole thing was a mistake. The legal significance of Rettenberger's intent was made explicit: DETECTIVE CORBIN: This  no one meant for this to happen. This was not a capital offense. This was not a situation where you guys planned on doing this. This was not pre-meditated. Yeah, the robbery was. So it's robbery. The time you get on robbery, bare minimum. First offense, you're hardly looking at anything. (Emphasis added.) ¶32 These and similar statements by the officers, standing alone, may not have overcome Rettenberger's will such that his confession was involuntary. At a minimum, however, they constitute evidence that, when considered in light of the totality of circumstances, strongly weighs against the conclusion that the confession was voluntary.