Opinion ID: 811594
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Livers’ Confession

Text: Livers claims the Cass appellants and NSP appellants are liable for coercing his confession. Coercing a confession violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Wilson, 260 F.3d at 952. Whether particular interrogation techniques are unconstitutionally coercive depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the officers’ conduct and the accused’s characteristics. See id. at 952-53. In Wilson, we determined officers violated the clearly established due process rights of a mentally retarded man when they (1) had reason to know Wilson was mentally retarded; (2) interrogated him for over four hours; (3) never left him alone; (4) interrogated him without any friend, relative, or advisor present; (5) falsely claimed they had strong incriminating evidence; (6) promised leniency if Wilson -20- confessed and said Wilson would be found guilty if he did not; (7) “used threatening tones and language”; (8) refused to accept Wilson’s protestations of innocence, threatening to use them to secure harsher penalties; and, (9) “[o]f particular concern,” obtained the confession using leading questions that provided details about the crime. Id. Here, the district court refused to grant qualified immunity on Livers’ confession claim, citing evidence Livers’ confession was coerced and “some dispute about whether or when the defendants knew or should have known of [Livers’] mental deficiencies.” As in Wilson, there is evidence Livers is mentally retarded and Investigators Lambert, Schenck, and O’Callaghan knew or should have known Livers was mentally retarded.10 A forensic psychologist opined Livers showed signs of mental retardation during the interrogation. For example, when Livers was told to “stand up” if he were a man, he literally stood up from his chair. Livers told Investigators Lambert and Schenk he was “dumb as a brick.” Investigator Schenck admitted Livers “appeared to be having difficulty understanding some of the questions,” and the investigators were told before the April 25 interrogation of Livers that Livers was “slow,” “different,” “mentally off,” and “immature for his age.” 10 The NSP appellants contend there is no fact issue because the veracity of the DVDs of Livers’ confession are undisputed. Though the veracity of the DVDs is undisputed, conflicting inferences can be drawn from the actions and statements recorded therein, and the parties dispute both the extent of Livers’ mental impairment and appellants’ knowledge of it. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Livers and make all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. To the extent appellants contend any issue of fact is not genuine, we cannot reach this issue. See id. at 319-20. -21- Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan interrogated Livers for approximately six and a half hours before Livers confessed, significantly longer than Wilson’s four-hour interrogation. See id. at 952. Like Wilson, Livers did not have an attorney, relative, or other advisor present during the interviews. The investigators told Livers the polygraph irrefutably indicated Livers’ guilt. Investigators promised to help Livers if he confessed and told Livers he would be executed if he did not. Investigators Schenck and Lambert ridiculed Livers’ protestations of innocence, which they threatened to use against Livers. In doing so, the investigators “used threatening tones and language.” See id. at 953. Livers denied knowledge of or involvement in the murders more than eighty times before he began to confess. Investigators Lambert and Schenck obtained Livers’ confession almost entirely through the use of leading questions that provided the details about the murders. The NSP appellants attempt to distinguish Wilson, noting the officers picked up Wilson “under the pretense of having him identify a lost wallet,” id. at 950, whereas Livers consented to giving an interview and taking a polygraph exam. This distinction is significant, but these are fact issues and do not directly affect our qualified immunity legal determination. Although Livers, like Wilson, was advised of his Miranda rights, “[a]dvising a suspect of his rights does not automatically mean that any subsequent confession is voluntary . . . , particularly when [the officers] know the suspect is unlikely to fully understand those rights.” Id. at 953. Whether Livers understood his Miranda rights is a disputed fact for the jury in this case. The cases the Cass appellants cite to support their position that Livers confessed voluntarily are distinguishable. The suspect in Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2004), was questioned for only one hour before confessing and the plaintiff did not show the confession was obtained through leading questions that provided information about the crime. Berghuis v. Thompkins, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2259-64 (2010), is inapposite because it addressed whether a suspect invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda, not whether his rights to -22- substantive due process were violated or whether his confession was the product of police coercion. The Cass appellants also cite a long list of cases in which a court found a confession voluntary even though the suspect had a low IQ. In all but one of these cases, there was no evidence of police overreaching, unlike in Livers’ case. See United States v. Makes Room for Them, 49 F.3d 410, 412-15 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 875-78 (9th Cir. 1991); Derrick v. Peterson, 924 F.2d 813, 81719 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Macklin, 900 F.2d 948, 950-52 (6th Cir. 1990); Moore v. Dugger, 856 F.2d 129, 131-32 (11th Cir. 1988); Dunkins v. Thigpen, 854 F.2d 394, 399 (11th Cir. 1988); Winfrey v. Wyrick, 836 F.2d 406, 410-12 (8th Cir. 1987); Vance v. Bordenkircher, 692 F.2d 978, 981 (4th Cir. 1982); Hall v. Wolff, 539 F.2d 1146, 1149-52 (8th Cir. 1976); Coney v. Wyrick, 532 F.2d 94, 97-98 (8th Cir. 1976); Fairchild v. Lockhart, 744 F. Supp. 1429, 1437, 1449 (E.D. Ark. 1989). The remaining case cited by the Cass appellants, Sumpter v. Nix, 863 F.2d 563, 565 (8th Cir. 1988), included a long interrogation and manipulation of the suspect’s emotions. However, there is no indication any of the other factors present in Wilson and this case—such as a confession procured using leading questions and isolating the suspect from any advisor during the interrogation—existed in Sumpter. See id.; Wilson, 260 F.3d at 952-53. “[S]tate officials [may not] cherry-pick cases that address individual potentially coercive tactics, isolated one from the other, in order to insulate themselves when they have combined all of those tactics in an effort to overbear an accused’s will.” Wilson, 260 F.3d at 953. Finally, the NSP appellants argue the first interview, before the polygraph, was not coercive. If true, this is not determinative of Livers’ claim because the conduct of Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan after the polygraph, which led to Livers’ confession, arguably was coercive. The alleged actions of Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan during Livers’ interrogation potentially violated a right that was clearly established by -23- Wilson in 2001, well before Livers was interrogated. See id. at 952-53. Though fact and credibility issues about the appellants’ culpability remain, a reasonable officer would have known the alleged conduct violated Livers’ rights as described in Wilson. See id. The district court properly denied Investigator Schenck’s and the NSP appellants’ motions for summary judgment on this claim. There is no evidence Sergeant Weyers was involved in the interrogation, but she may be liable as a coconspirator for coercing Livers’ confession, if Livers proves a conspiracy and a coerced confession. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1263 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting defendants who conspire to deprive a plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights are jointly liable for their co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the conspiracy), overruled on other grounds, Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (5th Cir. 1979); see also infra section II.G.1 (discussing Livers’ conspiracy claim).
Sampson contends on appeal that appellants violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by coercing Livers’ confession. To the extent Sampson raised this issue in the district court,11 the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on this claim because a plaintiff does not have standing to claim a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation based on someone else’s coerced confession. See van Leeuwen v. United States, 868 F.2d 300, 301-02 (8th Cir. 1989). 11 Sampson arguably waived any such claim by not clearly raising it in his amended complaint. See Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 924 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting an issue not raised below is waived). See also discussion, supra n.9 (explaining a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation only occurs when the covered statements are used against the speaker in a criminal prosecution). -24-