United States v. Corbert Goldtooth
673 F. App'x 678
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Corbert Goldtooth was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing Virgil Teller 16 times on the Navajo Reservation; incident arose from a gang dispute involving Goldtooth's son, Gage.
- Goldtooth went to Teller’s house at night with weapons and other gang members and left the victim to die; he disposed of the weapon, destroyed evidence, and initially lied to police before confessing.
- At trial Goldtooth claimed he acted in defense of his son (and himself) after Teller allegedly attacked Gage with a machete.
- Goldtooth moved to suppress his confession as involuntary, arguing psychological coercion when an FBI agent mentioned his son; he had waived Miranda and consented to the interview.
- At sentencing the district court denied downward departures for acceptance of responsibility and for victim provocation and imposed a 360-month in-Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — malice aforethought | Goldtooth: killing was heat-of-passion provoked by Teller attacking Gage; no malice | Government: facts show intentional/reckless killing with extreme disregard (planning, multiple stab wounds, concealment) | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support malice aforethought |
| Self-defense | Goldtooth: used deadly force to protect son and himself | Government: response was disproportionate; Gage’s injury not life-threatening; jury could discredit self-defense claim | Affirmed — reasonable jury could reject self-defense |
| Voluntariness of confession | Goldtooth: confession coerced by agent’s reference to his son (psychological coercion) | Government: waiver and consent; agent’s mention was permissible moral appeal and related to a legitimate suspect; not coercive | Affirmed — confession voluntary under due process standards |
| Sentencing departures | Goldtooth: should get downward departures for acceptance of responsibility and victim conduct | Government: district court reasonably denied departures based on trial, lies, evidence destruction, and credibility findings | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; 360-month sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 592 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Kleeman v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 125 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.) (malice aforethought defined as intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for life)
- United States v. Quintero, 21 F.3d 885 (9th Cir.) (extreme provocation can negate malice)
- United States v. Keiser, 57 F.3d 847 (9th Cir.) (self-defense jury instruction and standard)
- United States v. Miller, 984 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir.) (involuntary confessions and psychological coercion)
- Ortiz v. Uribe, 671 F.3d 863 (9th Cir.) (permissible moral appeals vs. coercion in interrogation)
- Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (coercive interrogation where grants of benefit conditioned on confession)
- Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.) (limitations on psychological coercion in custodial questioning)
- United States v. Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing permissible questioning about others from coercive tactics)
- United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for guideline application and sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court credibility findings)