United States v. Pacheco, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1239

Pacheco was arrested during a SWAT-assisted operation around 3:22 a.m. and transported to the police station about 1–1.5 hours later.
Pacheco arrived at the station around 5:00 a.m. and slept in an interview room for about three hours before questioning began.
During the search of his home, police found a firearm, a bank bag, and victim wallets; other items linked to robberies were recovered.
Pacheco was interviewed beginning at 7:45 a.m. with Detective Bolter present; initial Miranda warning was given at the start of this interview.
Pacheco denied involvement in robberies during the initial interview, later admitting to one offense after additional warnings and discussion of evidence and potential sentences.
Detective Wendelboth subsequently interrogated Pacheco for about 40–45 minutes, implying leniency and presenting a potential federal deal, leading to a confession about the other robberies; the total interrogation lasted roughly two-and-a-half hours before the interrogation ended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda warnings given were sufficient	Pacheco argues the warning was inadequate because of misstatements and lack of proper phrasing.	Pacheco contends the warning was insufficient to convey rights and undermine voluntary waiver.	Miranda warning deemed sufficient to convey rights.
Whether Pacheco's confession to Wendelboth was voluntary	Pacheco argues promises of leniency and threats overbore his will.	Wendelboth's conduct allegedly included assurances of leniency and threats directed at family, affecting voluntariness.	Confession to Wendelboth found involuntary and suppressed.
Whether other confessions should be suppressed after finding coercion	Pacheco seeks suppression of all confessions derived from the coercive interrogation.	Argument focuses on voluntariness of the Wendelboth-interrogated confession specifically.	Confession about January 17th robbery and firearm possession not suppressed; other confessions suppressed.

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (requires consideration of two-step interrogations and warnings)
Lopez v. United States, 437 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2006) (promises of leniency can be coercive when combined with custodial interrogation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (clarifies need for clear, unequivocal invoking of rights and understanding of warnings)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989) (warns that coercive environment can undermine voluntariness even with warnings)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (discusses understanding of rights and waiver in light of counsel availability)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987) (context of warnings and voluntariness in police interrogation)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (promises and threats analysis related to plea and cooperation considerations)
United States v. Carrizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) (coercive effect of promises discussed in voluntariness analysis)