United States v. Tymond Preston, 706 F.3d 1106

Preston convicted by bench trial of Abusive Sexual Contact under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244.
Incident involved an eight-year-old victim (TD) and occurred in Preston's home in Sept. 2009; exact timing contested.
Preston gave a confession to agents after interrogation; day of incident was initially mis-stated in interview notes.
Indictment for Aggravated Sexual Abuse was dismissed; information charged Abusive Sexual Contact; sentence included a lifetime term of supervised release.
District court relied on the confession, TD’s statements, DNA evidence, and forensic/interview testimony; several supervised-release conditions were imposed including plethysmograph testing and restrictions on materials and contact with minors.
Judgment on appeal affirms conviction in part, remands for resentencing on certain supervised-release issues; final disposition: AFFIRMED in part, REMANDED for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of Preston’s confession	Confession involuntary due to coercive interrogation	No coercion; totality of circumstances shows voluntariness	Confession voluntary; properly admitted
Waivers of indictment and jury trial	Waivers were not knowingly or intelligently made	Waivers were knowingly, intelligently made with proper collogy	Waivers valid and properly accepted
Admissibility of DNA testimony under Rule 702	DNA analysis unreliable; unfair prejudice	DNA testimony reliable; proper Daubert gatekeeping	DNA testimony properly admitted under Rule 702; court did not abuse discretion
Admissibility of TD’s grandmother/uncle statements and Officer Butler testimony; Confrontation Clause	Officer Butler testimony and hearsay violated Confrontation Clause	Grandmother/uncle statements admissible as excited utterances; Officer Butler harmless error	Grandmother/uncle statements admissible under excited utterance; Butler testimony harmless error
Scope and reasonableness of supervised-release conditions; plethysmograph testing and age-based contact limits	Plethysmograph testing and vague materials restriction improper; mens rea issue	Conditions justified; propose remand for clarification and potential narrowing per Wolf Child	Remand to reconsider plethysmograph testing; clarify/adjust vague material-prohibition condition; add mens rea requirement; Wolf Child considerations applied

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1993) (totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness test for confessions)
Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (coercive police activity and interrogation factors)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (coercion required for involuntariness; no coercion here)
Pollard v. Galaza, 290 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2002) (false evidence ploys and coercion considerations in obtaining statements)
Coleman, 208 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2000) (limits on improper promises to obtain statements)
Doody v. Ryan, 649 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (permissible interrogation tactics; continuing questioning after innocent claims not coercive)
Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2003) (allowing continued questioning; not per se coercive)
United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (limitations on broad supervised-release conditions; need record justification)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (cognitive impairment; considerations in coercion and voluntariness)
Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1961) (relevance of mental capacity in coercion analysis)
Mendiola (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Mendiola), 976 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1992) (considerations of cognitive impairment in confession voluntariness)
Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (gatekeeping for plethysmograph testing; justification required)