310 F. Supp. 3d 1318
D.N.M.2018Background
- Defendant Lyle Begay was interviewed by FBI agents on July 18, 19, and 30, 2013 regarding alleged sexual abuse of a minor; he made inculpatory statements in all three interviews.
- July 18: agents visited Begay's home; Begay voluntarily entered an unlocked FBI Suburban for ~3 hours, was told he was not under arrest and could leave, but was not given Miranda warnings.
- July 19: Begay voluntarily came to the FBI office and spoke ~1.5 hours with Special Agent Schaeffer; again he was not Mirandized.
- July 30: Begay returned to FBI headquarters for a purported polygraph pre-test; he signed a Polygraph Consent Form and an FBI Miranda Advice form, then spoke first with Agent Sullivan (~3 hours unrecorded) and later a recorded interview (~1.5 hours); no polygraph was actually administered.
- Defendant moved to suppress all statements as involuntary and not Mirandized; the government moved to exclude defense experts (Dr. Richard Leo on interrogation/false confessions; Eric Lucero on polygraph).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Begay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony re: interrogation tactics | Exclude if methodology not disclosed or not reliably applied to case | Admit Dr. Leo to explain interrogation practices and risks to voluntariness | Dr. Leo may testify generally about interrogation tactics but not apply them to this case |
| Expert testimony re: false confessions | Unreliable and risks usurping jury; Tenth Circuit disfavors such testimony | Allow Dr. Leo to explain false-confession research and causes | Excluded — Dr. Leo may not testify about false confessions or opine that Begay’s confessions were false |
| Expert testimony re: polygraph procedures | Exclude absent relevant application to this case | Admit Lucero to critique FBI pre-test and polygraph practice | Excluded as irrelevant (no polygraph was administered) |
| Whether July 18, 2013 interview was custodial / statements voluntary | Not custodial; agents told Begay he was free to leave; statements voluntary | Begay contended vehicle setting, presence of weapon, and closed doors made it custodial/coercive | Not custodial; statements voluntary — suppression denied |
| Whether July 19, 2013 interview was custodial / statements voluntary | Not custodial; Begay came voluntarily, told he could leave; statements voluntary | Begay argued he felt expected to take a polygraph and was coerced | Not custodial; statements voluntary — suppression denied |
| Whether July 30, 2013 waiver and statements were voluntary | Valid waiver: Begay signed Miranda form and consent; statements voluntary | Begay contended he only skimmed forms, felt he had to comply, and Sullivan used coercive tactics | Waiver valid and statements voluntary — suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping role for expert reliability under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping extends to technical and specialized expertise; factors are flexible)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Benally v. United States, 541 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming exclusion of false-confession expert testimony as unreliable or usurping jury)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (custody standard: whether a reasonable person would feel deprived of freedom of action)
- Jones v. United States, 523 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2008) (totality-of-circumstances factors for custodial-interrogation analysis)
- Adams v. United States, 271 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001) (expert testimony on credibility may be excluded for usurping jury function)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda requirements are constitutionally based)