United States v. Francisco Casillas , 538 F. App'x 751 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50350
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04519-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANCISCO CASILLAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 6, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM,
Senior District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Senior District Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
Francisco Casillas appeals his conviction for importing marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and now reverse and remand for a new trial.
Casillas argues that the district court should have suppressed his post-arrest
statements because the interrogating ICE agents continued questioning him after he
unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent multiple times; the agents failed
to adequately advise him of his Miranda rights; he did not knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; and his confession was not voluntary.
Without reaching any of the claimed Miranda violations, we conclude that
Casillas’s confession was not voluntary under our clear precedent. Brown v.
Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). Right after Casillas signed the Miranda
waiver form, Officer David Sanchez told him: “Because if you don’t want to
cooperate, you don’t want to talk, you don’t want— no, well, they’re going to say,
‘This man doesn’t have— is not sorry about anything. Throw the— the— the—
the book at him.’ Right?” We have repeatedly found that a threat of harsher
treatment renders any subsequent confession involuntary. United States v.
Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 890-92 (9th Cir. 1994); Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411,
416-22 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); United States v. Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332, 1335-37
(9th Cir. 1981). In Harrison, we held a confession was involuntary where an agent
2
had informed the suspect that she might be facing up to 20 years in prison and
threatened that he would inform the judge that she refused to cooperate. 34 F.3d at
890. We stated that “there are no circumstances in which law enforcement officers
may suggest that a suspect’s exercise of the right to remain silent may result in
harsher treatment by a court or prosecutor.” Id. at 891-92.
Casillas’s statement was an integral part of the government’s case. Its use
cannot be deemed harmless, and the government does not contend otherwise.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3