Opinion
EP-00-CR-980-DB.
August, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Defendant Maria de Lourdes Velasquez-Carillo's Motion to Suppress Statement, filed in the above-captioned cause on July 17, 2000. The Government filed a Response to Defendant's Motion on August 1, 2000. On August 9, 2000, the Court held a hearing on the matter.
After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
FACTS
At approximately 1:20 p.m. on June 3, 2000, a van approached the Paso Del Norte ("PDN") Port of Entry from Mexico carrying five passengers. After brief questioning in the primary inspection area, a United States Customs ("Customs") agent referred the van to the secondary inspection area for further inspection. There, the passengers were asked to exit the van, where agents found some sixty-five pounds of cocaine. All the passengers were placed into custody.
Customs Special Agent Hernan Rios ("Rios") and Agent Ruth Baca ("Baca"), among other agents, arrived separately at the PDN facility to investigate the seizure. After Baca photographed the van, unloaded the cocaine and prepared samples for testing, Rios escorted the driver of the van, Defendant Jose Luis Villalobos-Campos ("Villalobos"), to an interview room within the PDN facility — an office with a desk, computer, filing cabinet and three or four chairs. The others, Defendant, Guadalupe Felix-Lazo ("Lazo") and Lazo's two teenage children, remained in a waiting area. After Rios took a brief personal history of Villalobos (using Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Form 202), Rios gave Villalobos a Miranda warning written in Spanish. Indicating he understood his rights and signing a written waiver of those rights, Villalobos agreed to talk to the agents. Villalobos confessed that he and his girlfriend, Defendant, agreed with another man in Mexico to bring drugs into the United States in exchange for five to eight-hundred dollars. Villalobos further insisted that Lazo — Defendant's sister-in-law — and the teenagers — Lazo's children — knew nothing of the plan, and that they were asked along to make the escapade seem less suspicious. Villalobos signed a written statement to this effect.
At some point, Defendant was placed in a holding cell. Also, it is unclear from the testimony whether Lazo and her children were placed in a holding cell as well. Notwithstanding, the Court finds this discrepancy of little importance to the instant Motion.
Next, the agents interviewed Defendant. As they did with Villalobos, Baca collected a brief personal history from Defendant using DEA Form 202, speaking in Spanish. Then, Rios presented Defendant with a Miranda warning written entirely in Spanish. Rios, who also speaks fluent Spanish, asked Defendant to read the first few lines of the form out loud to ensure that Defendant could read. Then, Rios read the entire form to Defendant using his index finger to point to the line he was then reading; Defendant followed along. When finished, Rios asked Defendant if she understood her rights, which Defendant indicated she did.
After indicating she understood her rights at approximately 5:26 p.m., the agents told Defendant that they had found drugs in the van. They further told Defendant that Villalobos had admitted knowing about the drugs and had exculpated Lazo and Lazo's children. Defendant indicated that she wanted to answer the agents' question and, for the next twenty minutes or so, Defendant essentially repeated the story Villalobos related to the agents previously. Specifically, Defendant stated that a man (Villalobos's nephew) came to her house (where she lives with Villalobos) and asked her and Villalobos to drive a vehicle into the United States; that she knew that the vehicle would contain drugs; that Lazo and her children knew nothing of the illicit purpose of their trip to the United States; and that she (Defendant) asked Lazo to come in order to facilitate passing the check-point.
Thereafter, Defendant indicated that she wanted to prepare a written statement. The agents returned Defendant to a holding cell where Defendant, alone, prepared such a written statement. Later, Defendant prepared a second statement because she claimed that she had included an incorrect date and wanted to correct the date. According to Defendant, who testified at the hearing, she prepared the statement(s) because the agents told her that if she did not confess, they would arrest Lazo and the teenagers also; that if she confessed, they would allow her to return to Mexico; and that if she confessed, they (the agents) could lower her sentence. To the contrary, Both Rios and Baca testified that Defendant never was promised that she could go free or could lower her sentence by confessing. The agents further testified that they never threatened to arrest Lazo and/or Lazo's children if Defendant did not confess.
The statement Defendant prepared, entered into evidence at the hearing as Government's Exhibit 2, is written completely in Spanish. The Government entered a version translated into English as Government's Exhibit 2A, which reads as follows:
Mr. Judge.
My name is Lourdes Velazquez. I am writing you these lines to give my confession before you. Over what happened with the crime committed today. Jose Luis Villalobos (we) established a relationship since some time ago. In the final days of the week, he stayed in my house. I live in Juarez, Mexico. Tony Rivera, my husband's nephew, proposed to Jose Luis to bring a car to the United States with drugs.
He did not know what type of drug was in the vehicle. He also did not know how much money they were going to pay him. It is the first time we have done this and
I am very regretful for what we have done. But I also did it for economical reasons. I have family that depend on me. Mr. Judge, I believe in God and divine justice. My future and my luck is in your hands from th[ese] moments. I hope to satisfy the requirements that you place upon me. At the same time, I ask for your forgiveness for my doings and hope that God believes in my remorse.
Government's Exhibit 3a, in turn, sets forth an English translation of Defendant's second written statement:
Mr. Judge.
My name is Lourdes Velazquez. I am writing you these lines to give you an explanation concerning the actions that the occurred today. Last night, Mr. Jose Luis Villalobos and I accepted to bring a car loaded with drugs, today, Saturday, to the U.S.Jose Luis and Antonio Rivera made the arrangements over the payment and how to do the operation. I did not know what type of drug the vehicle contained and how much the payment was going to be.
Mr. Judge, I believe in God and divine justice. I come to you for mercy. I recognize that I am committing a crime but I did it because the necessity. I have family that depend on me. I also recognize that my future is in your hands as of today. That is why I ask you for forgiveness and in these lines I demonstrate my remorse.
Jose Luis Villabos (mispelled) said the same version over the actions and we cooperated with the agents questions.
At the hearing, Defendant initially testified that the things she wrote in her statements are true. After subtle prompting from her attorney, Defendant back-tracked and testified that the things in her statements are those things that the agents told her to write. Because the Court finds Defendant wholly not credible, the Court disregards the alleged promises/threats altogether.
Based on Defendant's and Villalobos's statements, the agents released Lazo and her two teenage children immediately after Defendant's interview ended.
On June 14, 2000, the Grand Jury indicted Defendant and Villalobos with four counts: conspiracy to import a controlled substance; importation of a controlled substance; conspiracy to possess a controlled substance; and possession of a controlled substance. The instant Motion to Suppress Statement followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant asks the Court to suppress the two written statements she provided because "[t]he statements were made after coercion, threats and promises from law enforcement agents."
Defendant having made a claim of involuntariness, the burden falls to the Government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant voluntarily waived her rights and that her statements were made voluntarily. See United States v. Restreppo, 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir. 1993). "A confession is voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, the statement is the product of the accused's free and rational choice[,]" id. (internal quotation marks removed) (quoting United States v. Doucette, 979 F.2d 1042, 1045 (5th Cir. 1992)), "in the absence of official overreaching, in the form of either direct coercion or subtle psychological persuasion." Id. Among other factors, a court should take into consideration the following: (1) the time elapsed time between arrest and confession; (2) the defendant's understanding of the nature of the offense; (3) whether the defendant knew she need not speak; (4) whether the defendant knew she had the right to have an attorney present; and (5) whether the defendant actually had counsel at the time she made a statement. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501(b) (West 1985); see also United States v. Perez-Bustamante, 963 F.2d 48, 51 (5th Cir. 1992).
Here, Defendant was informed that she and the other passengers of the van were being held because the van contained drugs. Although there is no indication that Defendant knew the seriousness of the offenses with which she now is charged, she clearly knew the nature of the crimes about which the agents wanted to question her.
More importantly, Defendant was informed that she need not speak with the agents and that she could get an attorney at no cost to her and have that attorney present during questioning. Rios gave Defendant a written document informing her of her rights under Miranda. The document was written in Spanish, presumably Defendant's native language. Rios even asked Defendant to read to him the first line of the document, just to be sure that Defendant could read Spanish. An educated woman — a nurse assistant with a diploma — Defendant read along as Rios read the document to her out loud, indicating with his finger where on the page he was reading. Defendant signed and dated the form, carefully noting the exact time — 5:25 p.m. — as well. Moreover, Defendant admitted during the hearing that Rios read her her rights, that she followed along as he read aloud, and that she understood her rights.
Turning to whether Defendant voluntarily waived the rights she clearly understood, Defendant contends that she did not. On the other hand, Rios and Baca both testified that Defendant immediately expressed an interest in making a statement. Having already noted that the Court does not find Defendant credible, the Court finds that Defendant did agree to speak with the agents. However, Defendant also alleges that she only spoke with the agents because they threatened to jail Lazo and Lazo's teenage children. Also, Defendant testified that the agents promised Defendant that they would both let her return to Mexico if she confessed and, curiously contradictory, that they would intervene with the courts to get Defendant a lower sentence. The obvious contradictory nature of the alleged promises further supports the Court's finding that Defendant is not to be believed.
The Court also finds that the two statements Defendant penned further belie her claim that she did not wish to waive her rights and speak to the agents. Defendant wrote the statements with her own hand, without anyone in the same room. Defendant apparently was not satisfied with the way she expressed herself in the first statement, and wrote a second. Both statements set forth the relevant facts about the entire episode, only the first characterizes her statement as a "confession" and the second an "explanation." The Court also notes that both statements are addressed to "Juez," Spanish for "judge." Although Defendant contends that she wrote only what she was told to write, it seems odd that the agents would have Defendant direct her statements to an unnamed judge in the form of a letter, begging for mercy. Rather, the format and salutation indicate that the contents of each statement is the product of Defendant's free and rational thoughts.
Finally, Defendant contends that the length of time she was held at the PDN creates a presumption of involuntariness. To the contrary, Defendant hardly was held at length before making the challenged statements. Here, the entire episode commenced at approximately 1:20 p.m., when the van Defendant was riding in approached the POE. Some four hours later, Defendant signed the Miranda warning and gave her statement shortly thereafter. The entire episode — including the primary inspection; secondary inspection; photographing the van; removing the discovered drugs; taking Villalobos's personal history and interviewing him; and doing the same for Defendant — lasted only some five hours.
Even were the detention unusually lengthy, however,
"[w]here there is no evidence to support a finding that the delay was for the purpose of obtaining a confession, there is no evidence that the delay had a coercive effect on the confession, there is no causal connection between the delay and the confession, and the confession was otherwise voluntarily given . . . the defendant has not shown prejudice by the delay."
United States v. Perez-Bustamante, 963 F.2d 48, 53 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Bustamante-Saenz, 894 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1990)); see also United States v. Mullin, 178 F.3d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting same to find confession after twenty-one-hour detention not involuntary). Here, there is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate that any delay was purposefully injected in order to gain a confession.
Having examined all of the evidence presented at the hearing on this matter and arguments thereon, the Court finds the instant Motion to Suppress Statement wholly meritless. Defendant clearly knew her rights and voluntarily waived those rights when she agreed to speak with the agents and thereafter penned not one, but two statements in the form of a plea for mercy to an unnamed judge. As such, the Court finds no government overreaching. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the instant motion should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Maria De Lourdes Velasquez-Carillo's Motion to Suppress Statement is DENIED.