Opinion ID: 170372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voluntariness of Mr. Butters’s Confession

Text: Mr. Butters argues that he involuntarily confessed to the FBI his belief that Michelle was thirteen. We review de novo the district court’s ruling that Mr. Butters’s confession was voluntary, “crediting the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d 1323, 1333 (10th Cir. 1999). “The essence of voluntariness is whether the government obtained the statements by physical or psychological coercion such that the defendant’s will was overborne.” United States v. Carrizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142, 1153 (10th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 692 (2006). The following factors are relevant to this inquiry: the age, intelligence, and education of the defendant; the length of the detention; the length and nature of the questioning; whether the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights; and whether the defendant was physically punished. Id. At the Jackson v. Denno hearing, Mr. Butters contended that (1) after reading the advice-of-rights/waiver form, he did not understand some of it, including the form’s explanation of the right to counsel; (2) the FBI agents did not respond to his questions about the right to counsel; and (3) the initials on the form after each of the listed rights were not his. 2 These contentions were contradicted at the hearing. Specifically, 2 In his appellate brief, Mr. Butters claims that his will was overborne during the FBI interview because he is “slow,” “easily manipulated,” and “want[s] to (continued...) -5- one of the two FBI agents who interviewed Mr. Butters testified that Mr. Butters did not ask any questions about the rights listed on the form. And both agents testified that Mr. Butters freely initialed and signed the form. There was also testimony that Mr. Butters was a high-school graduate, had attained the rank of staff sergeant, had not ingested alcohol or drugs on the day of his arrest, was not threatened or otherwise mistreated during his interview, and had been detained for only ninety minutes before the interview began. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding Mr. Butters’s confession voluntary. But even if we assume that his confession was involuntary and should have been excluded, we are convinced that the error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991) (holding that the admission of an involuntary confession is subject to harmlesserror analysis). Based on the recorded internet and telephone communications between Mr. Butters and “Michelle” that were admitted at trial, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Butters believed Michelle to be thirteen years old. 2 (...continued) please others.” Aplt. Br. at 13. But he did not make these claims during the Jackson v. Denno hearing. And even when testimony was offered at trial during the defense’s case-in-chief about Mr. Butters being slow, easily manipulated, and eager to please, defense counsel did not connect it to the voluntariness of Mr. Butters’s confession. -6-