United States v. Imm, Juvenile Male
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5892
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- IMM (12) was tried in federal juvenile court for sexually abusing his 6‑year‑old cousin (MM) on an Indian reservation; prosecution relied primarily on a videotaped confession, MM’s 7‑year‑old brother’s eyewitness testimony, statements by MM and family, and testimony about events that day.
- Police interviewed IMM at a police station ~7 months after the incident: an armed plainclothes detective transported IMM and his mother in an unmarked car, placed IMM alone in a small closed room, and interrogated him for ~55 minutes using deceptive, leading techniques.
- The detective read a Parental Consent to IMM’s mother (not IMM), did not personally recite Miranda warnings to IMM, and elicited an inculpatory statement; district court denied suppression, finding no custody and voluntariness.
- The government’s § 5032 certification omits a page and does not expressly state a substantial federal interest, but certified that the juvenile/state court lacked jurisdiction; defense challenged federal jurisdiction.
- District court found MM’s younger brother (7 at trial) competent to testify after an in‑court colloquy; IMM challenged competency and later argued insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Government’s Argument | IMM’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5032 certification was sufficient to confer federal juvenile jurisdiction | Certification satisfied § 5032’s first provision (state court lacks jurisdiction); missing page was harmless and certification need only meet one provision | Certification was defective (missing page and no statement of substantial federal interest), so federal court lacked jurisdiction | Certification satisfied § 5032 (substantial‑federal‑interest requirement applies only to the third provision); district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether IMM was "in custody" and Miranda warnings required; whether confession admissible | Interview was noncustodial; parental consent and brief admonition to IMM’s mother cured concerns; statements admissible | A reasonable 12‑year‑old would have felt not free to leave given transport, closed room, isolation, duration, and deceptive interrogation; no Miranda warnings were given to IMM, so statements must be suppressed | IMM was in custody for Miranda purposes; detective did not personally Mirandize IMM; inculpatory statements must be suppressed |
| Competency of 7‑year‑old eyewitness to testify | Child was competent under Rule 601 and 18 U.S.C. § 3509(c): he demonstrated understanding of truth vs. lies and could answer simple questions | Child lacked understanding of an oath and had memory/reliability problems; testimony should be excluded | District court did not abuse discretion: child was competent to testify; any concerns went to weight, not admissibility |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction | Viewing all trial evidence (including the confession), a rational trier of fact could find penetration (sexual act) beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence did not prove penetration (at most contact "between the cheeks"); insufficient to convict | The evidence, including the inculpatory statements, was sufficient to support conviction; but the confession must be suppressed under Miranda, so conviction reversed and remanded for retrial possibilities |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver rules)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (children’s age is relevant to custody analysis)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (Miranda safeguards and voluntariness)
- Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (children’s vulnerability in interrogation)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (two‑part custody inquiry)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (custody and Miranda analysis principles)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (totality‑of‑circumstances custody test)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (coercive nature of custodial interrogation)
- Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (Miranda’s prophylactic role)
- United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. factors for custody analysis)
- United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048 (en banc custody/voluntariness standards)
- United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879 (custody determination review)
- United States v. Barnes, 713 F.3d 1200 (custody where interrogation confronted suspect with evidence in small room)