Opinion ID: 2614597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶2 On the morning of November 20, 1996, Rettenberger, then age eighteen, was taken into custody by the Woods Cross Police for questioning concerning the murder of Matthew John Wicker. Detective Jeff Corbin, a detective with the Bountiful Police Department Metro Narcotic Strike Force, gave Rettenberger his Miranda warnings. [1] Rettenberger had never previously been arrested or interrogated by the police. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Detective Corbin began to interrogate Rettenberger. At the outset of the interrogation, Detective Corbin reminded Rettenberger of his rights under Miranda  DETECTIVE CORBIN: Todd, at the Sheriff's Office I talked to you a little bit about your rights. You know, we discussed, you know, the thing with the attorney and what not. I just want to verify that you have those rights and that you can exercise those rights any time you feel like it. MR. RETTENBERGER: Okay. A few minutes later, after Detective Corbin had informed Rettenberger that he was a suspect in the murder case, the following exchange took place: DETECTIVE CORBIN: What I want you to do at this point is to be your own best friend. I want you to tell me what you know. I want you to help me to help you so that I can explain to the judge this wasn't pre-meditated, that it was a heat of the moment thing that happened. Things got out of hand, he struggled with you guys. MR. RETTENBERGER: There's no way, there's no way that I even did this. I am getting, I'm getting an attorney. I am pleading innocent. I was not there, I did not murder this guy. DETECTIVE CORBIN: That is your right to plead innocent. MR. RETTENBERGER: And I do not know nothing about this. DETECTIVE CORBIN: Let me go see if the rest of the information is ready. MR. RETTENBERGER: Can I go now? DETECTIVE CORBIN: Nope, hang on. Let me go see what else we've got. We've got stuff coming in right and left, so  Detective Corbin then exited the room. He returned shortly and resumed questioning of Rettenberger. Later in the interrogation, a similar exchange took place: MR. RETTENBERGER: Can, can I have a lawyer talk to you guys? Do I have that right? DETECTIVE CORBIN: I told you your rights, remember, at the Sheriff's office? MR. RETTENBERGER: Yeah, I just need to  DETECTIVE CORBIN: And I told, and I told you  let me finish. I told you your rights over here. I told you what I expected and what you could expect from me, okay? ¶3 The first interrogation lasted approximately one and one-half to two hours. Towards the end of the first interrogation, Rettenberger began to admit his involvement in the murder. At the conclusion of the first interrogation, Rettenberger was placed in solitary confinement at the Davis County correctional facility. At approximately 2:30 the following afternoon, Rettenberger was again interrogated. At the beginning of the second interrogation, Rettenberger attempted to recant his previous inculpatory remarks, but later in the interrogation he again admitted that he had been involved in the crime. Both interrogations were videotaped, and the tapes have been viewed by the district court and this court. ¶4 During the interrogations, the interrogating officers, Detective Corbin and Officer Timothy, made several references to the potential penalties facing Rettenberger, including the death penalty. They refused to allow him to speak with his mother and refused to allow him to use the restroom. As we discuss below, the officers lied to Rettenberger numerous times concerning the existence, nature, and strength of evidence they had collected against him. ¶5 Before trial the defendant moved to suppress his confession on the grounds that (1) his confession was the involuntary result of police coercion and (2) he had invoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent and that those invocations were not honored by the police. ¶6 During the suppression hearing, Vicki Gregory, Ph.D., J.D., testified that based upon her evaluation of Rettenberger and a review of his medical and psychological records she formed the expert opinion that he had Attention Deficit Disorder (A.D.D.), a below average I.Q., and the maturity level of a fifteen-year-old. She also testified that he exhibited symptoms of depression, anxiety disorder, thought disorder, schizophrenia, and Dependent Personality Disorder. Dr. Gregory concluded that Rettenberger would be highly susceptible to psychological manipulation by police interrogators, that he would be overly compliant and dependent upon the police officers, and that he would tend to agree with the officers' statements during an interrogation in order to relieve his stress. Dr. Gregory also opined that Rettenberger would experience greater anxiety in solitary confinement than would the average person. ¶7 The district court found that Dr. Gregory's conclusions were consistent with the testimony of Detective Corbin. Detective Corbin testified that, based on his experience with one of his own children, he recognized that the defendant exhibited symptoms of A.D.D., had the maturity level of a fifteen-year-old, was under extreme stress and anxiety during the arrest and interrogations, and was afraid of the death penalty. ¶8 The district court first ruled that Rettenberger's requests for an attorney were equivocal and therefore the officers had no obligation to stop the interrogation. The district court also concluded that, although a close call, the interrogation was not objectively coercive. On that basis, the district court concluded it was unnecessary to examine whether Rettenberger's confession was voluntary. [2] ¶9 We now address Rettenberger's contention that the district court erred in ruling that his confession was not coerced and in declining to consider whether the confession was involuntary. Because we reverse the district court's ruling and hold that Rettenberger's confession was the involuntary product of police coercion, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.