holding that an investigatory inter- view was clearly non-custodial and that the confession was voluntary when the interview took place in the suspect’s mother’s home, the suspect freely consented to answer the officers’ questions, and the suspect was at liberty to terminate the discussion at any time
How later courts described this case
- holding that an investigatory inter- view was clearly non-custodial and that the confession was voluntary when the interview took place in the suspect’s mother’s home, the suspect freely consented to answer the officers’ questions, and the suspect was at liberty to terminate the discussion at any time
- ruling officer's statement " '[i]f you're not coming clean ... you can do five years,' " was "simply not an implied promise of non-prosecution" and did not suggest that if defendant "did 'come clean' he would not face jail time" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- recognizing that a law “enforcement officer may 21 properly tell the truth to the accused,” and that “[t]ruthful statements about [the defendant’s] predicament are not the type of ‘coercion’ that threatens to render a statement involuntary.”
- recognizing that a law “enforcement officer may properly tell the truth to the accused,” and that “[t]ruthful statements about [the defendant’s] 12 predicament are not the type of ‘coercion’ that threatens to render a statement involuntary.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MICHAEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment because I do not believe that the totality of the circumstances reveals that Braxton’s will was overborne or that his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired. See United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1071 (4th Cir.1987).