# Opposition Brief — Blum v. Crowe > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_2533%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2011 - **Citation:** 562 U.S. 1135 ## Text si 087 10-376, 10-377, 10-420 " wl Pare Zanroe | i In The c cme | Supreme Court of the United States MARK WRISLEY, et a/., Petitioners Vv MICHAEL CROWE, cf — = @ HRISTOPHER McDONOUGH, ) fit r P tiivVU MICHAEL CROWE, ef Ri LAWRENCE N BLUM, MICHAEL CROWE, et « Responds On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit ¢- — — CONSOLIDATED BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF AARON HOUSER, MARGARET SUSAN HOUSER, AND GREGG HOUSER o — BOUDREAU WILLIAMS LLP SCHOVILLE & ARNELL, LLP JON R. WILLIAMS, ESQ. DENNIS A. SCHOVILLE, ESQ. Counsel of Record LovuIs G. ARNELL, Esq. 666 State Street 2404 Broadway san Diego, CA 92191] San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-0370 (phone) (619) 232-9901 (phone) (619) 238-8181 (facsimile) (619) 232-9904 (facsimile) williams@bwlawllp.com Attorneys for Respondents Aaron Houser, Margaret Susan Houser, and Gregg Houser COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Petitioners have presented compelling reasons to grant the petitions, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held on the record before it that: 1. Use of confessions coerced from juveniles and later introduced in pre-trial proceedings during the course of the “criminal case” violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; ) 2. A police conspiracy to intentionally violate a juvenile’s Constitutional rights, with the aim of coercing a confession no matter the human toll, sufficiently “shocks the conscience” to support a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections; 3. A clinical psychologist, retained by police to devise strategies and techniques to “psychologically break” juvenile criminal suspects during coercive interrogations, may be held liable for conspiracy to violate those juveniles’ constitutional rights. ll TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED .........0:.ccccccccvenvsoceseeses DP anes re A os veces snd ccdcrseecixiancntoserdenseaes il ARES ie CO PAU ek CN ce svicnisindbveccseicscssecessvenss V FEE 0 EY snccddnks sda rvcccuaevardevivavicsuvevess | I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE................. | 2 ey re fer eakeb ees ates B. January 22, 1998: The Police Interrogate Aaron Houser at His Home................... 8 C. January 27, 1998: The Police Interrogate Aaron Houser Again at His Home and at the Escondido Police Department .... 8 LD. January 27, 1998 to January 28, 1998: The Police Interrogate Joshua Treadway OE LS TAOS CIV ov scsceseccice cs insesnss 9 KE. The Ruse Phone Call to Aaron.............. LO KF. February 10, 1998: The Police Interrogate Joshua For Another 12 Hours............... 1] G. February 11, 1998: The Police Arrest Aaron at School, Search His Locker and Home, and Interrogate Him For a Third Time....... Mecsilber cde cas ciate een eas 12 H. Use of the Boys’ Statements in the Criminal Cases Against Them.............. 14 |. Dismissals of Indictments and Prose- et er RN ee alae 15 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued i. bo Page J. The Boys’ Subsequent § 1983 Action in ET EI CIES occa conch aces cccscsasecveevess K. The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling.................... Ill. REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETI- EE iso covnssdvnakecass eistariasestadn ins A. Petitioners’ Attempts to Manufacture Review of Respondents’ Fifth Amendment Claims Has Recently Been Rejected by This Court and Should Be Rejected Pe Fe sic eee The Alleged Split Between the Circuit Courts Does Not Warrant This Court’s Attention at This Time..................... Wie ba eo a | | re b. The Fourth Circuit ..................... Ae es gS ee: | d. “Fhe Sixth Circitit...............0c0005.c25 The Compelling Facts of This Case Make It a Uniquely Poor Vehicle for Review of the Widespread Application of Fifth Amendment Protections ........ Petitioners’ Claim That the Ninth Circuit's Decision Will Have a “Chilling Effect” on Law Enforcement Activities Is Supported Neither By Fact Nor 29 [V. 1V TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued Page B. Petitioners’ Arguments That There Is a Need to Clarify “Conscience Shocking” Behavior Under the Fourteenth Amend- ment Also Fails to Raise an Issue Wor- thy of This Court’s Review .................... 1. This Court’s Decisions Are Replete with Examples of Verbally Coercive Interrogations Which Violate the Fourteenth Amendment................... 2. Petitioners’ Companion “Shocks the Conscience” Arguments Warrant Even Less Scrutiny by This Court............ y %} C. The Ninth Circuit’s Reversal of Summary Judgment on the Conspiracy Claim Asserted Against Blum Was Entirely Fact-Driven and Therefore Presents No Legal Issue for This Court to Clarify...... Ne FI oe uc cis ) aval repa due illuminate how psycholoyvical nst 14 and Ld Yeal old Hoy I) rdeqa as the basi for a Fourteent process violation; and (C) explain authority hold that private AcLOI \ lol held iting the constitutional right OI ¢ liable for conspiracy. In doing I long Her h Ame ndment how unuforn Kespondent Gecisions al Court all aT! inted here ourt LO geny t r'¢ mwe nr r { ll Wile’ | 4A I} ( irl Line tral) Lill r) t | ’ ore I i in cold an ma idin hi i nm tnat tn remind this Court of its own relevant the consistent decisions of the Circuit which demonstrate why review 1s not w Accordingly, Re pondent urge thi ( review in thi case wher like that balloonist fror Kansa Petitioner respective petits by this Court for what they really ar Petitioners have projected them to | II STATEMENT OF THE CASEI Kor well over a half century ind decisions, fHlale, State of Ohto, 3 ind /n re: Gault, 387 U | (196, recognized that juveniles ubjected t ustodial police interrogations art MM ind a ucl annow be idged icting Landara ol maturit lt ha Onn that which would Cave i | unimpressed can overawe and overwhe early teens.” And it is for that very 1 Court recognized why “authoritative oy orn idahble doubt upon Live rehabili worthine of conte ron r) hildre house inexplicably close as he approached. But with- out investigating further, that officer turned around, concluded that Tuite was simply “gone on arrival,” and then took himself out of service so he could eat dinner. Having so easily evaded that police officer, Tuite made his way through Stephanie’s house and into her bedroom, finally finding someone he believed resem- bled “Tracy.” Tuite then fatally stabbed Stephanie in her bedroom, where she was found slain by her horrified family. Called to investigate in the morning, the police instantly seized upon a flawed theory that this hid- eous crime had been committed by a member of Stephanie’s family, and not by Tuite. Using a ploy to separate Stephanie’s brother and sister from their parents, the police instantly began hammering on Stephanie’s 14-year-old brother, Michael Crowe, as their lead suspect. In brazen violation of Michael’s rights, the police subjected Michael to prolonged, coerced interrogations, deliberately disregarding his repeated requests to see his parents, to stop the interrogations, and to use the bathroom or to sleep. Enlisting the aid of a clinical psychologist and a “truth box” voice analyzing machine which they knew was merely a sham instrument meant to intimidate and “psychologically break” Michael, the police ulti- mately wore Michael down, convincing him that he had some sort of pent-up hate of Stephanie that caused him to “black out” and kill her without realiz- ing it. Yet even after coercing that confession, the police still had a problem. While the evidence continued to voint strongly to Tuite as Stephanie’s murderer, no physical evidence linked Michael to the crime. Ig- noring Tuite, the police cast a dragnet over two of Michael’s friends, Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser (also juveniles), accusing them of being ac- complices and co-conspirators. In what one expert would later characterize as “the most extreme form of emotional child abuse that I have ever observed in my nearly 40 years of observing and working with chil- dren and adolescents,” the police employed the same coercive interrogation techniques to Joshua and Aaron, not to learn or discover the truth, but to browbeat, deceive, threaten and — by any means necessary — coerce them into admitting to their preconceived and factually unsupported theory of how Stephanie was murdered, no matter how strongly the actual evidence pointed toward Tutte. However, when blood evidence from Tuite’s clothing (ignored by the police for a year) was later confirmed to be Stephanie’s, charges against Michael, Joshua and Aaron were reluctantly dropped, and Tuite was prosecuted for, and ultimately convicted of, Stephanie’s murder. Consequently, Michael, Joshua and Aaron filed suit against the police and related entities, alleging that their civil rights had been repeatedly and intentionally violated by the police to support a ridiculous “theory-based” investigation, and in a concerted effort to provide “cover” for one of their 6 own who had the last, best chance to stop Tuite, but never even attempted to do so. While the District Court granted the police summary judgment by measuring their behavior as if they had been dealing with hardened adult criminal suspects, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding on de novo review that “[o]ne need only read the transcripts of the boys’ interrogations, or watch the videotapes, to understand how thoroughly the defendants’ conduct in this case ‘shocks the conscience.’” (App. 47.)' The Ninth Circuit further held that use of those coerced confessions at various pre-trial hearings — but after charges had been brought against the boys and the “criminal case” commenced — violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (App. 36-45.) In an attempt to induce this Court’s review, Petitioners have offered a highly glossed and sani- tized version of the underlying facts. But it is the unique and compelling facts of this case which make it a particularly unsuitable vehicle for review on the multiple issues raised by Petitioners. Thus, as Rule 15.2 requires Respondents to point out to the Court any perceived misstetements of fact contained in the underlying petitions, Respondents focus here on the All factual references in this Opposition Brief are made to the Appendix of documents attached to the Petition of Mark Wrisley, Barry Sweeney, Ralph Claytor, and Phillip Anderson (“the Escondido Petitioners”), and are abbreviated as: “(App. - P Ln | page}j.) insufficiencies in that recitation, citing to the under- lying opinions of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court. A. Summary. In his separate Opposition Brief, Co-Respondent, Michael Crowe, describes in detail the facts leading up to Tuite’s murder of Stephanie, how the circum- stantial and p’sysical evidence strongly implicated Tuite from the outset of the investigation, and how no physical evidence whatsoever tied Michael to the murder of his sister. Thus, for the sake of brevity, a full recounting of those facts and circumstances will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say, however, that within minutes of arriving at the scene, the Escondido police officers investigating Stephanie’s murder conspired to pin that hideous crime on a family member, and Michael unfortunately became their target. The problem with that plan was that notwithstanding their ability to “psychologically break” Michael and to coerce a confession from him, the police could find no physi cal evidence (including a murder weapon) link- ing Michael to that crime. Thus, to justify their own mistreatment of Michael, the investigating officers further conspired to search, arrest and interrogate two of Michael’s friends, Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser, all with the goal of further knuckling un- der those juveniles to support their “theory-based” investigation, even as the objective evidence increas- ingly pointed to Tuite. B. January 22, 1998: The Police Interrogate Aaron Houser at His Home. «pe On January 22, 1998, Petitioners first interro- gated Aaron at his residence. (App. 25.) They initially questioned Aaron regarding his relationship with Michael, and his interest in mystical fantasy games and medieval weapons. (/d.) Although those questions were clearly intended to elicit incriminating respons- es from Aaron, the police never warned Aaron (then a 14-year-old with no prior criminal record) of his Miranda rights. (/d.) C. January 27, 1998: The Police Interrogate Aaron Houser Again at His Home and at the Escondido Police Department. On January 27, 1998, Petitioners executed a search warrant at Aaron’s residence, based primarily on prior statements they elicited from him. (App. 25.) During that search, Aaron was confined to his living room and kitchen, except when brought to his bed- room to answer questions. Aaron was then taken to the Escondido police station for further questioning, which lasted nearly two hours. (/d.) Again, those interrogations were clearly intended to elicit incrimi- nating res>onses and were even videotaped for that 9 purpose, bit at no time was Aaron advised of his Fifth Amendment rights. (/d.) D. January 27, 1998 to January 28, 1998: The Police Interrogate Joshua Treadway For 13 Hours Overnight. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 27, 1998, the Escondido Police began their first grueling inter- rogation of Joshua, lasting over 13 hours. (App. 29- 30.) To begin, Claytor questioned Joshua for several hours, employing various techniques outlined for him by psychologist, Lawrence Blum, meant to coerce Joshua into admitting involvement in a crime that neither he, nor his friends, committed. Ud.) Specifi- cally, Claytor baited Joshua with promises of leniency (rehabilitation) and then scared him with threats of punishment (prison). (/d.) He also denied Joshua’s request to see his mother, denied his request for water, and refused to take him to the bathroom. (/d.) Claytor never advised Joshua of his Fifth Amendment rights. (/d.) As Joshua began to show visible signs of strain folowing Claytor’s, Wrisley’s and Sweeney’s seven hours of grilling, McDonough strategically took over Joshua’s interrogation at 3:00 a.m. on January 28, 1998, consistent with the plan the officers and Blum had previously devised to “break” Joshua. (/d.) It was at this time that McDonough turned loose on Joshua the “truth box” Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (““CVSA”) device. Ud.) Notably, McDonough would 10 later admit he did not know how or if the CVSA worked, but told Joshua in no uncertain terms that the CVSA was “97% accurate,” and immediately determines if your answer is right or wrong. Despite McDonough’s onslaught and deception, Joshua initially maintained his innocence. (App. 30.) However, McDonough relentlessly interrogated and psychologically abused Joshua, utilizing the CVSA as the tool of that coercion. Joshua was exhausted and repeatedly asked to be allowed to sleep. (/d.) When Joshua ultimately broke down and falsely told McDonough that Aaron gave him the knife used to kill Stephanie ~ the only story Joshua discerned would allow him to escape further coercion - McDonough pretended to administer another CVSA exam, telling Joshua that he had now “passed” the test. Ud.) Yet at no time during over 13 hours of interrogation did McDonough “Mirandize” Joshua Treadway. (/d.) E. The Ruse Phone Call to Aaron. Having “cracked” 15-year-old Joshua, Claytor and Anderson further manipulated Joshua in an unconscionable attempt to obtain a false confession from Aaron. Specifically, they goaded Joshua to call Aaron and to accuse him of complicity in Stephanie's murder while they secretly listened to that phone call. (App. 30.) Aaron, however, denied any involve- ment, and was emotionally shocked, confused and frightened by that ruse. (/d.) 11 F. February 10, 1998: The Police Interrogate Joshua For Another 12 Hours. Having already succeeded in extracting a false story from Joshua that Aaron gave him the knife Michael used to kill Stephanie, McDonough, Claytor and other officers pushed their plan further, deciding to bring Joshua back for another interrogation on February 10, 1998. (App. 30.) Knowing that Joshua was already vulnerable to their influence and that they could now manipulate Joshua to follow’ their preconceived _ script, McDonough and Claytor interrogated Joshua for another 12 hours. (/d.) With direction and assistance from Blum, Claytor and McDonough used similar coercive techniques to those utilized on January 28, 1998, with similar results. By the end of that interro- gation session, they had Joshua fabricate a fantasy confession in which Aaron stabbed Stephanie with Michael Crowe’s help, while he (Joshua) acted as the “lookout.” (/d.) Notably, that false confession was so meandering and internally inconsistent — with key facts changing every few moments — that even McDonough doubted it to be true. U/d.) Yet this did not deter the officers from arresting Joshua at the conclusion of this second interrogation, reading him his Miranda rights for the first time, and booking him into San Diego County Juvenile Hall. (/d.) 12 G. February 11, 1998: The Police Arrest Aaron at School, Search His Locker and Home, and Interrogate Him For a Third Time. Using Joshua’s false confession of February 10, 1998, as “probable cause,” the following day the police searched Aaron’s home and his school locker, while they seized Aaron at his school vithout telling him he was under arrest. (App. 25.) After Aaron was brought from school to the Escondido Police Department, he was interrogated for a total of nine and one-half hours, primarily by McDonough. (/d.) As with Michael and Joshua, McDonough’s interrogation of Aaron was psychologi- cally grueling, was based on coercive techniques and strategies tailored by Blum to overtake Aaron’s will and to force a false confession, and was justified by Blum telling the officers that Aaron was “a Charles Manson wannabe” and “Charles Manson with an 1.Q.” (App. 26, 77.) Aaron was also interrogated under false pretenses in that neither he nor his parents were told that Joshua had implicated him in the murder, or that Aaron was even a suspect. (App. 26- 28.) As such, Aaron was under the false impression that he was merely assisting the police in their inves- tigation of Michael. (/d.) As with Joshua, McDonough repeatedly deceived Aaron in his attempts to extract a confession. For example, during the interrogation, McDonough asked Aaron to describe “hypothetically” how Michael might kill Stephanie, how Joshua might, and how Aaron might do so. (d.) To accomplish that _ goal, McDonough used the CVSA device to “condition” and “svggest” Aaron’s responses. (/d.) But not only was Aaron’s hypothetical description at odds with the evidence of how the killing actually took place, it was completely different from Joshua’s fabricated scenario, which also did not match the evidence. Nevertheless, McDonough told Aaron that the CVSA indicated that he was “definitely involved” and that Petitioners had physical evidence against him and would soon uncover more. (/d.) McDonough continued that deception by also telling Aaron that Michael and Joshua had said that Aaron helped him kill Stephanie, and that the physical evidence would implicate him. (/d.) Upon realizing for the first time that he had been deceived and was being questioned as a_ suspect, Aaron demanded that the interrogation stop and asked to use the bathroom. Neither request was honored. (/d.) On two additional occasions, Aaron asked to speak with his mother, but was not permit- ted to do so.” (/d.) Claytor also denied Aaron the right to speak with his father. (/d.) On another occasion, Aaron demanded that the interrogation cease which Under California law, a minor subject to custodial interro- gation invokes his Fifth Amendment right by asking to see a parent. People v. Burton, 6 Cal.3d 375, 383-384 (1971). Upon such a request, before or during questioning, “the police must cease custodial interrogation immediately.” Jd. at 384. 14 request was likewise denied. (/d.) Yet after approxi- mately 11 hours of coercive interrogation in which Aaron maintained his innocence, the police booked him into Juvenile Hall, never having properly advised him of his Miranda rights. He was thereafter hand cuffed, photographed in the nude, and incarcerated for approximately eight months. H. Use of the Boys’ Statements in the Criminal Cases Against Them. Statements obtained from the boys during their interrogations were introduced during at least three pre-trial proceedings. (App. 30-31.) First, a “Dennis H.” hearing was held and resulted in Aaron and Joshua spending several months in jail awaiting trial.” Second, the boys’ statements were introduced during subsequent grand jury proceedings, resulting in indictments against all three boys for murder. Finally, the statements were used in a “707 Hearing” to determine if the boys would be tried as juveniles or adults.’ (/d.) ‘ In California, when a minor is taken into custody by a police officer, he must be released within 48 hours from the time of apprehension unless a petition is filed within that time in a court of competent jurisdiction explaining why the minor should be declared a ward of the court. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 631; see also In re: Dennis H., 19 Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1971) * The California Supreme Court has characterized trying a minor as an adult as “the worst punishment the juvenile system is empowered to inflict.” Ramona R. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d (Continued on following page) Notably, at a subsequent suppression hearin; the state court found that most of Michael’s state ments were the product of a “coercive scheme” by the police and suppressed them. Similarly, the state court suppressed all of Aaron’s statements on the ground that Aaron had never been Mirandized, while als suppressing a large portion of Joshua’s statements or the same basis. (App. 31-32.) I. Dismissals of Indictments and Prose cution of Tuite. After the case against the boys had been set for trial, pieces of Tuite’s clothes (which had been collect ed but never analyzed when the police first stopped Tuite the day after Stephanie was killed) were exam ined, the DNA results of which revealed spots of Stephanie’s blood. (App. 32-33.) The prosecution then filed a Motion to Dism) the indictment against thi boy: Ud J. The Boys’ Subsequent § 1983 Action in the District Court. After the charges against them were dismissed the boys and their families filed three eparate com plaints in state court alleging violations of 42 U.S. BOZ 8IO (1985): accord Marcu V\ yipertor | irt Cal.App.4th 36, 45 (2002) (holding that the elf-incrimination applies in “707 hearing moved the complaints to federai court \pt Following various motions to dism! laint the District Court consolidated all three tions and ordered the filing of a Joint First Amen Complaint (/d.) Petitioner then brought ove! 1 ( eparate motions tor summary mdgment the subject of substantial, serial briefing in the D) trict Court over a penod of four and one-half year (ia Prior to Tuite trial and ultimate nviction I Lephanie murder Line District Court ued ti lirst of two lengthy opinion n kebruary 1% O04 iInding in ubstance that J nua and Aaron re pective claims for violation of their lourth, Fiftl tourteenth Amendment rights did 7 rr agment p yy t Arte! Duite | n I ) I . repruary Z 4000 ruler mn Michuae ma f if) MAaIniIng ront ( pean pro! pt 1 ft ) ind of sit ir motions for Ssummar idyment tik y Petitioner rot Ving 1 f rsé { narted | Line i17N) prouvn [ [ i I ( } ! AA } (ourt meniecd Viic?l ’ | ' rt Myiul an ' : - > kK the Ninth Circuit’s Kuling | ‘ nti f } } | r } | | |) ‘ 18 claims against the municipal entity defendants. (App. 48-59, 68, 71-80.) Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment as to the Crowes’ individual claims for Fourth Amendment violations arising out of their respective strip searches and drawing of blood samples; as well as their claims for wrongful detention and deprivation of familial com panionship arising out of Michael and his sister, Shannon, being placed in protective custody. (App. 62- Ob. ) Petitioners thereafter petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc, both of which were properly denied. (App. 6.) Hil. REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITIONS A. Petitioners’ Attempts to Manufacture Review of Respondents’ Fifth Amendment Claims Has Recently Been Rejected by This Court and Should Be Rejected Again Now. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V (emph. added). This Court has emphasized that the “sole concern” of the Fifth Amendment is “to afford protection against being ‘forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to 19 criminal acts.’” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444 (1972). Petitioners claim that in the wake of the Chavez plurality opinion, there is an alleged “conflict” within the Circuit Courts about when, precisely, a “criminal case” begins. As Respondents here explain, that argument is nothing new, but rather is precisely the same argument the Escondido Petitioners raised as amicus in support of review of the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910 (94.1 Cir. 2009), cert. denied, April 5, 2010. This Court rejected those same arguments just over seven months ago, and should do so again now. Moreover, as Respondents further explain, this case presents a uniquely poor vehicle for review of the widespread application of Fifth Amendment pro‘ec- tions, as it involves juvenile criminal defendants who this Court has mandated should be subject to differ- greatest care” S. at 55) than their fully emancipated adult counterparts. Accord- ent interrogation standards (1.e., “the standard under /n re: Gault, 387 U. ingly, as that “greatest care” standard necessarily overlays the Ninth Circuit’s Fifth Amendment analy- sis, this case is an inappropriate platform from which to extrapolate legal concepts meant to apply to a much broader population of criminal defendants. 20 1. The Alleged Split Between the Circuit Courts Does Not Warrant This Court’s Attention at This Time. With great hyperbole, Petitioners claim that a “deep circuit split” exists by relying on decisions from four Circuits — the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits. They do so by cherry-picking language from a small collection of cases in those Circuits which have never squarely addressed the “criminal case” question post-Chavez, as have the Second, Seventh. and Ninth Circuits. As set forth more fully below, the language on which Petitioners rely either pre-dates Chavez, or is dicta (not binding on future decisions in those Circuits) wrested from factually distinguishable decisions. Consequently, it remains unclear whether those Circuits would hold differently if they were actually confronted with the same compelling factual scenario presented in this case. a. The Third Circuit. For example, in the Third Circuit decision of Renda v. King, 347 F.3d 550, 553 (3rd Cir. 2003), the plaintiff was charged with giv.ng false reports to law enforcement authorities. The Court of Common Pleas suppressed the plaintiff’s statements due to Miranda violations and the case was nolle prossed by the District Attorney for lack of evidence. /d. The plaintiff filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, a violation of her Fifth Amend- ment rights. The Third Circuit held that the plain- tiff’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated 1 because her statements were never used against her at trial. Jd. at 559. In doing so, however, the Third Circuit failed to engage in any substantive analysis of the issue now presented to the Court. The decision simply states on this issue: “... our prior decision in Giuffre compels the conclusion that it is the use of coerced statements during a criminal trial, and not in obtaining an indictment, that violates the Constitu- tion.” Jd. Notably, however, Gruffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241 (3rd Cir. 1994), upon which Renda relied, was a pre- Chavez case. Additionally, as correctly pointed out by the Seventh Circuit in the subsequent, post-Chavez decision of Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, Ill., 434 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2006), Giuffre was “decided before the Supreme Court determined in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), that the Miranda warn- ings themselves have constitutional status.” /d. at 1025. The Seventh Circuit concluded therefore that “little weight” should be placed on the holding in Giuffre, given that subsequent change in the law. /d. Furthermore, Giu/ffre was factually similar to Chavez in that officers obtained a statement from the plain- tiff during an allegedly coerced interrogation but charges were later dropped prior to the filing of a criminal case. Jd. at 1244. Here, in contrast, Aaron’ coerced statements were used in bringing criminal charges against him, in denying his pre-trial release, and in deciding whether to try him as an adult. In short, the Renda decision relied entirely on a distinguishable pre-Chavez decision which failed to y set forth any detailed analysis to support its conclu- sion that a Fifth Amendment violation occurs only when a statement has been used at trial. As such, Renda does not present a proverbial “split” among the Circuits at all, let alone one that is sufficiently ma- ture to warrant this Court’s attention now. Indeed, faced with facts similar to those presented in this case — and given the guidance this Court has pro- vided since in Chavez — it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Third Circuit would not agree with the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in both Stoot and this case. b. The Fourth Circuit. Similarly, in the Fourth Circuit decision of Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508, 510 (4th Cir. 2005), an officer approached the plaintiff at a traffic accident scene. When the plaintiff refused to answer any of the officer’s questions, he was charged with obstruction of justice and operating an uninsured motor vehicle. Ja. at 511. When the plaintiff’s conviction on those charges was later overturned on appeal, he brought a § 1983 action alleging, among other things, his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the state compel- ling him to produce evidence of insurance. /d. The Fourth Circuit analyzed the plaintiff’s claim under Chavez noting that this Court’s plurality con- clusion that a violation of the constitutional right of self-incrimination occurs only if one has been com- pelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal 23 case. Id. at 513, citing Chavez, 538 U.S. at 770. The Burrell court then focused on Justices Souter’s and Breyer’s concurrence in Chavez which concentrated on whether a violation required “courtroom use of a criminal defendant’s compelled, self-incriminating testimony....” /d, citing Chavez, 538 U.S. at 777 (emph. in orig.). Based on that reasoning alone, Burrell concluded “[Plaintiff] does not allege any trial action that violated his Fifth Amendment rights: thus, ipso facto, his claim fails on the plurality’s reasoning.” Jd. But closer scrutiny reveals that Burrell’s statement regarding requirement of a “trial” action is pure dicta. Indeed, the plaintiff in Burrell never alleged any “courtroom use” of statements since he only asserted a violation occurred at the time summonses were issued by the state. Jd. Thus, that language, as it related to the question presented by the limited facts of that particular case, went well beyond those facts and consequently, would not be binding on subsequent cases. In fact, the Seventh Circuit in Sornberger, which reached the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit in this case, explained why that isolated language in Burrell created no conflict with its own holding: We do not see conflict between our holding today and that of our sister circuit in Burrell. There, Burrell claimed that his constitu- tional rights were violated when the police issued him an obstruction of justice sum- mons for invoking his right to remain silent. The Fourth Circuit held that the issuance of 24 a summons was not a “courtroom use of a criminal defendant’s compelled, self- incriminating testimony,” and _ therefore Burrell failed to state a claim under § 1983 for violation of his right against self- incrimination. Here, by contrast, Teresa’s confession was used at a preliminary hearing to find probable cause to indict, to arraign and to set her bail. More than the mere issuance of a summons, failure to administer Teresa Miranda warnings led to three dis- tinct “courtroom uses” of her unwarned statements. Sornberger, 434 F.3d at 1027. Consequently, it is entirely unclear whether the Fourth Circuit would hold differently given the facts of this case. Indeed, like the situation in Sornberger and unlike the situation in Burrel/, the coerced statements used against Aaron formed the basis for filing formal charges against him, were used to determine his pre-trial custody status, and led to Aaron being tried as an adult, all “courtroom uses.” As such, the “courtroom use” of the statement that was entirely lacking in Burrell is fully present in this case, as it was in Sornberger. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Burrell does not present a split among the Circuits, but must be viewed as limited to the facts before it, which are clearly distinguishable from those found in this case. 25 ec. The Fifth Circuit. In the Fifth Circuit’s decision of Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2005), the plaintiff (a juvenile) was charged with capital murder and injury to a child. The plaintiff’s statements, obtained without taking her before a magistrate or notifying her par- ents or an attorney as required by Texas law, were used age. st her during two different trials leading to her conviction. Jd. at 284. The Texas Court of Ap- peals, however, reversed those convictions due to improperly acquired statements. /d. The plaintiff subsequently brought a § 1983 action alleging, among other things, a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. Id. When the plaintiff challenged the trial court’s grant of qualified immunity, the Fifth Circuit stated: “The Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination is a fundamental trial right which can be violated only at trial, even though pre-trial con- duct by law enforcement officials may ultimately impair that right.” Jd. at 285. The Murray court, however, provided no analysis regarding the question presented in this case, or clarified by the Chavez plurality: pre-trial use of coerced statements within the criminal case. Indeed, as in Burrell, that state- ment was circumscribed by the facts before it, as the plaintiff’s confession in Murray had, in fact, been used two different times against her at trial. Jd. at 284. Thus, Murray cannot be reasonably construed as going beyond its limited facts to reach a scenario where, like here, those same _ self-incriminating 26 statements are used in various pre-trial proceedings which implicate substantial liberty interests. Indeed, if confronted with the significantly distinguishable facts present in this case, it is unclear whether the Fifth Circuit would hold any different than the Ninth Circuit did in this case, or be bound by the factually dissimilar situation presented in Murray. d. The Sixth Circuit. Finally, in McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418, 425 (6th Cir. 2005), the self-incriminating statements in question were introduced at trial and played a “central role” in the plaintiff’s conviction. Consequently, the McKinley court’s recitation of the rule (in a mere footnote, no less) that the Fifth Amendment is a “trial protection” right was appro- priate on the limited facts before it. But it does noth- ing to require a similar holding where another court in the Sixth Circuit is later confronted with the facts present in this case: pre-trial use of a _ self- incriminating statement within the confines of the criminal case. Again, like the decision of the Fourth Circuit in Burrell, and the Fifth Circuit in Murray, the Sixth Circuit’s mere recitation in McKinley of a “trial pro- tection” rule — without any further analysis — does not define the contours of the Fifth Amendment in that Circuit, but must instead be viewed within the limited facts presented to the McKinley court. Indeed, none of the decisions on which Petitioners rely have 27 squarely addressed the different factual situation present here, and none would prohibit another court from ruling exactly as the Ninth Circuit did in this case if they are confronted with those distinguishable facts in the future. In contrast, every Circuit which has squarely addressed pre-trial use of self-incriminating state- ments in the “criminal case” has uniformly followed this Court’s guidance in Chavez and found such use to violate the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Sornberger, 434 F.3d at 1026; Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 172 (2nd Cir. 2007); Stoot, 582 F.3d at 925-926. There is no reason to believe the results would be any different if (and when) the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits have the opportunity to confront that same issue. But until they do — and render a decision on similar facts which is actually at odds with the decisions of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits — any alleged “conflict” raised by the Petitioners is simply non-existent, let alone sufficiently mature at this juncture to warrant this Court’s attention. 2. The Compelling Facts of This Case Make It a Uniquely Poor Vehicle for Review of the Widespread Application of Fifth Amendment Protections. As mentioned at the outset of this brief, one of the most compelling aspects of this case is that it involves juveniles (boys, ages 14 and 15) — with no 25 prior criminal history or contact with the police — who were subjected to hours of coercive interrogation before they were ever apprised of their Miranda rights. While Petitioners pay lip service to this fact, they just as quickly go on to forget Respondents’ relative youth, condoning inquisitorial techniques and practices which have been found to be appro priate, if at all, for adult criminal suspects. But the standards for exercising the “createst care” in analyzing police interrogations of juveniles are well-established, and run directly contrary to the authority relied upon by Petitioners. Indeed, as this Court made clear over a half-century ago in Jn re Gault: We appreciate that special problems may arise with respect to waiver of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege by or on behalf of children, and that there may well be some differences in technique — but not in princi ple — depending upon the age of the child and the presence and competence of parents... , the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or sug- gested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair. In re: Gault, 387 U.S. at 55 (emph. added). There can be no doubt that those “special prob- lems” — as well as the established body of law from this Court and others which deal specifically with the care which must be afforded juvenile criminal dé fendants in custodial interrogations — properly influ enced the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of Aaron’s Fifth Amendment claims, and would do the same if thi Court were to review this case. Consequently, the “special problems” inherent in addressing a juvenile case, and the unique and compelling factual issue involved in this case, make it an inappropriate ve hicle for resolving the questions presented 3. Petitioners’ Claim That the Ninth Circuit’s Decision Will Have a “Chilling Effect” on Law Enforcement Activities Is Supported Neither By Fact Nor Law. In a reprise of the unsuccessful arguments they offered in the Stoot case, Petitioners again argue the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case will have a “chilling effect” on law enforcement activities. Spe cifically, Petitioners suggest that the Ninth Circuit opinion creates an unworkable standard that will expose law enforcement officers to unnecessary law suits and civil lability, blithely characterizing thi case as involving “garden variety” interrogation techniques, even where juveniles were involved Those arguments, however, presuppose that law enforcement officers do not have to follow rules applicable to interrogations and that if they do not, there will be no repercussions. To the contrary, this Court's precedent, beginning with Miranda and 50) continuing to the present day, sets forth clear re quirements for a proper interrogation. A law enforce ment officer must follow those rules or face the CONSeCqUCNCE: Here, the record aptly demonstrates how time and again, Petitioners deliberately flouted those rule: by interrogating Michael aid Aaron for hours, and only Mirandizing them at the end of those interroga lions afler they had overcome the boys’ will and secured the confessions they were seeking. Conse quently, Petitioners’ arguments about the need for “proper guidelines” rings hollow when the record shows how they deliberately violated the guidelines this Court has already provided in myriad case: Moreover, at the time Petitioners took that action, it was firmly established in the Ninth Circuit that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to police officers who knowingly violate the law. Cooper v. Dupnick, 963 F.2d 1220, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds in Chavez, 538 U.S. 760 Rather than justifying protection for the prope: exercise of their duties, when law enforcement off} cials act as they have in this case, “they invite redre: under section 1983.” /d. at 1252 Petitioners’ fall-back position that the police cannot, as a matter of law, be found lable for any hifth Amendment violation where prosecutors (and not they) introduce those coerced statements at trial merits even less consideration. Such an argu ment lacks any legal support, and, in fact, has been squarely rejected by the very authority cited by Petitioners. See McKinley, 404 F.3d at 436-437. fn. 23 (addressing the District Court's decision in this case and finding it reasoning wholly “unpersuasive McKinley then cited a long train of authority mclud ing, Chavez — where it has never been questioned that the police may be held liable under §& 1983 for violat ing someone's Fifth Amendment rights. /d Indeed, as both the Sixth Circuit in McKinley and the Ninth Circuit in this case properly concluded, a rule barring suits ayainst the police for Fifth Amendment violations ts a rule barring any suits for hifth Amendment violations, given that prosecutor are absolutely immune from suit for their conduct a advocates within the judicial process. /d. at 437-438 tng Buckley vo. Iitzstmmon D09 US. 249. 24 (1998 But it cannot by and in fact. ha never been that invasions of the right avainst compelled elf mcrimination = are not actionable Consequently Petitioners’ assertion Lo the contrary, hould = | rejected by this Court on that basis alon (App. 42 14.) In sum, as freedom from compulsion lie al the heart of the Fifth Amendment, no purpose would be advanced by making the police immune, as a matter of law from the proveclions that Amendment pre vides Indeed, if thi were the Case, the police would only he encouraged LO compel coerced and elf incriminating statements with compl te impunity surely, such a re ult would be wholly contrary to a 32 long train of well-settled authority meant to regulate and discourage such police misconduct under the aegis of the Fifth Amendment. B. Petitioners’ Arguments That There Is a Need to Clarify “Conscience Shocking” Behavior Under the Fourteenth Amend- ment Also Fails to Raise an Issue Wor- thy of This Court’s Review. 1. This Court’s Decisions Are Replete with Examples of Verbally Coercive Interrogations Which Violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioners assert that the Ninth Circuit’s opin- ion in this case creates uncertainty and confusion about what conduct is sufficiently “conscience shock- ing” to warrant Fourteenth Amendment liability. They premise that argument on the assertion that “verbal” coercion and deception should not be enough, even where juveniles are the target of that coercion. But over a half-century ago in Haley, this Court found that a 15-year-old boy — based upon verbal coercion alone — was necessarily ill-equipped to with- stand an overnight police interrogation resulting in his coerced confession. Haley, 332 U.S. at 599-600. Writing for the Court, Justice Douglas reasoned that such a juvenile “cannot be judged by the more exact- ing standards of the law,” and further observed “(tlhat which would leave a man cold and unim- pressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early 33 teens.” Jd. Recognizing both that such a boy “ques- tioned through the dead of night by relays of police, is a ready victim of the inquisition,” and that while “mature men possibly might stand the ordeal ... a lad of tender years is no match for the police in such a contest,” the Haley court demanded that “special care in scrutinizing the record must be used” in order to protect the constitutional rights of juveniles, and to prevent the police from using custodial interrogations for “wringing confessions from them.” Jd. at 599-601 (emph. added). Not 14 years later, in Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962), this Court was again called upon to scrutinize a confession wrought from a juvenile in the course of a custodial police interrogation. Finding that the youth of the accused — 14 years old — was a “crucial factor” in determining whether due process violations had occurred, the Gallegos court reasoned: [A] 14 year-old boy, no matter how sophisti- cated, is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him when he is made ac- cessible only to the police. That is to say, we deal with a person who is not equal to the po- lice in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefit of his constitutional rights. Id. at 1212. Over the prosecution’s continuing assertion that such youth and immaturity were “irrelevant” in light 34 of the allegedly “voluntary” nature of the confession made, the Gallegos court retorted: But if we took that position, 1t would, with all deference, be in callous disregard of this boy’s constitutional rights. He cannot be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses, and knowledgeable of the conse- quences of his admissions. Id. at 1212-1213. Consequently, Gallegos, like Haley before it, concluded that “the formal confession on which this conviction may have rested was obtained in violation of due process.” /d. at 1213. Not four years later, the Court in /n re: Gault, 387 U.S. 1, again stressed the importance that youth plays in determining whether a confession is coerced, and echoed the mandate that “the greatest care” must be taken to assure that juvenile confessions are “voluntary, in the sense not only that [they are] not coerced or suggested, but also that [they are] not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 55 (emph. added). That “greatest care” standard was based upon this Court’s review of several lower court decisions confirming how juvenile confessions are often “the p-oduct of fear and fatigue due to extensive police grilling,” and how “the frightening atmosphere of a police station is likely to have a harmful effect on the mind and will of the boy.” Jd. at 52-53 (in- ternal quotes omitted). And so the Gault court, too, concluded with the continuing recognition that “au- thoritative opinion has cast formidable doubt upon the reliability and trustworthiness of ‘confessions’ by children.” /d. In the several decades since Haley, Gallegos, and Gault, other courts have universally followed this same line of reasoning, insisting that the law view juveniles differently than their adult counterparts.” Most notably, however, is the fact that the police conduct in those cases was “verbal,” as it was in this case. Indeed, as this Court has repeated many times, coercion can be mental as well as physical, as “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an * See, e.g., Woods v. Clusen, 794 F.2d 293, 296-298 (7th Cir. 1986), (finding that various coercive police techniques — relays of police interrogators, lying about the state of the evidence, promises of leniency — violated a 16-year-old’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, given his relative age, experience, and education); Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1013-1016 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying Haley’s “greatest care” standard to reject a coerced confession wrought from a 16-year-old juvenile and ultimately finding that the police had clearly violated the juvenile’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Secondary authority is also in accord. See 87 A.L.R.2d 624, Voluntariness and Admissi- bility of Minor’s Confessions; 82 N.C.L. Rev. 891, 944, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World; see also 30 N.Y.U. Rev.L. & Soc. Change 209, The Reality of False Confes- sions — Lessons of the Central Park Jogger Case (recounting in chilling detail how and why five juvenile boys subjected to heavy-handed police interrogation techniques confessed their in- volvement in an infamous crime they did not commit, and were prosecuted and convicted on the basis of those confessions alone, until the real killer, a serial rapist and convicted murderer, confessed to the crime some thirteen years later.) 36 unconstitutional inquisition.” See, e.g., Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287 (1991); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 483, 440-441 (1961); Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960). Here, the Ninth Circuit concluded from the record before it that Michael’s and Aaron’s confes- sions were the product of “psychological torture,” and that “lo]lne need only read the transcripts of the boys’ interrogations, or watch the videotapes, to under- stand how thoroughly the defendants’ conduct in this case ‘shocks the conscience.’” (App. 47.) On that record, and in light of the clearly estab- lished standards governing even verbal coercion which run through myriad decisions of this Court, there is absolutely no need for this Court’s interven- tion at this time. 2. Petitioners’ Companion “Shocks the Conscience” Arguments Warrant Even Less Scrutiny by This Court. Petitioners badly mischaracterize the Ninth Cir- cuit’s opinion and the record below to float two com- panion arguments, neither of which warrants this Court’s review. Specifically, Petitioners assert that a Fifth Amendment violation based upon coercive interrogation techniques, and a Fourteenth Amend- ment violation based upon deprivation of familial companionship, cannot be found absent conscience shocking behavior. ~l] But those arguments belie the fact that the Ninth Circuit, in finding that Petitioners violated Michael’s and Aaron’s Fifth Amendment rights, necessarily relied upon the same conscience shocking behavior that also formed the basis for Petitioners’ violation of the boys’ Fourteenth Amendment rights. In other words, the same coercive interrogation techniques employed by Petitioners amounted to violations of both Constitutional protections, given the egregious nature of that conduct. That this is so does not indicate that this case is at variance with any other decisions, but merely reflects the compel- ling facts which were before the Ninth Circuit, impli- cating both Fifth Amendment and _ Fourteenth Amendment protections. Similarly, Petitioners’ assertion that a depriva- tion of familial companionship claim under the Four- teenth Amendment requires conscience’ shocking behavior — and not mere “unwarranted interference” — is also an inadequate grounds for review. Indeed, in this case, it was the Petitioners’ conscience shocking and coercive interrogation tactics which the Ninth Circuit found to have caused Aaron’s wrongful incar- ceration and concomitant separation from his family. (See App. 69 [“Because Michael’s and Aaron’s contin- ued detentions were wrongfully justified by their illegally coerced confessions, we reverse’].) Thus, although the Ninth Circuit applied the proper stan- dard in reinstating that familial relationship claim, even if it were to have applied the “conscience shock- ing standard” Petitioners espouse, the outcome would 38 have been exactly the same. Accordingly, there is no reason for this Court to intervene on facts which would compel the same outcome, irrespective of the standard applied. C. The Ninth Circuit’s Reversal of Summary Judgment on the Conspiracy Claim Asserted Against Blum Was Entirely Fact-Driven and Therefore Presents No Legal Issue for This Court to Clarify. Blum’s individual argument — that as a private citizen, he cannot be held liable for conspiracy to violate Michael’s and Aaron’s constitutional rights — is presented without regard to the controlling stand- ard of review at summary judgment. Indeed, Blum recites at length improper factual findings made by the District Court as if they had been made after trial. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit simply deter- mined that genuine questions of material fact exist regarding the level and extent of Blum’s involvement which could not be determined at summary judg- ment, and reversed the District Court on that basis. (App. 66-68.) Rather than running contrary to this Court’s decision in Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 412 (1997), that conclusion by the Ninth Circuit only confirms that Blum is not automatically entitled to § 1983 immunity merely because he is a private individual, as was his primary argument on appeal. Moreover, as Blum’s own petition reveals, such a 39 holding is not a matter of controversy, but has been echoed in the decisions of “nearly every other Circuit Court” which has considered the issue. Thus, the compulsion for this Court’s review is clearly lacking. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the fact that the Ninth Circuit did not deny Blum qualified immunity based upon a “blanket prohibition” that private actors are never entitled to such immunity, as Blum contends. Indeed, the cases which Blum cites hold to the contrary. See, e.g., Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir. 2002) (which Bium claims applied a “blanket denial of qualified immunity to [a] private individual,” but which instead upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment upon a finding that no evidentiary basis existed for the conspiracy claim the plaintiff had asserted as the sole basis for § 1983 liability against that individual); Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090, 1096-1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (which Blum also asserts demon- strates the Ninth Circuit’s trend of “blanket denial” of qualified immunity to private individuals, but which instead extended immunity to a private towing com- pany under Richardson’s “good faith” defense to § 1983 liability). In any event, notwithstanding whatever post- Richardson “blanket prohibition” Blum believes he may have discerned from those decisions, no such automatic rule played any role here. Instead, the Ninth Circuit simply concluded that the record evi- dence regarding Blum’s involvement raised factual 40 questions which could not be properly determined at summary judgment: The record shows that the quality of Blum’s involvement in the interrogations is not cat- egorically inconsistent with a tacit “meeting of the minds.” According to one of the detec- tives, Blum helped the police formulate a “tactical plan” to approach the interview. Moreover, the detectives “pretty much” fol- lowed his advice after these consultations. Insofar as these tactics and lines of question- ing by the detectives shock the conscience, as demonstrated above, summary judgment in favor of Blum is unwarranted. (App. 67.) Thus, in determining that a meeting of the minds could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence (including Blum’s involvement in the interrogations and in formulating and directing the tactical plan), the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude it was “unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement.” (App. 67-68.) On that basis alone, the Ninth Circuit quite correctly reversed summary judgment as to Blum. There is nothing controversial about that proper application of well-settled sum- mary judgment standards. Consequently, there is no issue of law for this Court to clarify now. 4] IV. CONCLUSION Petitioners have not established any compelling reasons for this Court te grant their various petitions. For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request this Court to deny those petitions. Respectfully submitted, BOUDREAU WILLIAMS LLP JON R. WILLIAMS, ESQ. Counsel of Record 666 State Street San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-0370 (phone) (619) 238-8181 (facsimile) williams@bwlawllp.com SCHOVILLE & ARNELL, LLP DENNIS A. SCHOVILLE, Esq. LouIs G. ARNELL, Esq. 2404 Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 232-9901 (phone) (619) 232-9904 (facsimile) Attorneys for Respondents, Aaron Houser, Margaret Susan Houser, and Gregg Houser y * —— — : iA} (2. ) Supreme Court, U.S. Uy) - on / \ F°'LED NC eee Nos. 10-376, 10-377, 10-420 NOV 4 Ni : Sas | | OFFICE OF THE CLERK In The Supreme Court of the Gnited States . CHRISTOPHER MCDONOUGH, Petitioner, Vs. MICHAEL CROWE, et al., Respondents ———— * ——E On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit 7 ee CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI —— -¢ TIMOTHY ‘T. COATES, ESQ. Counsel of Record CYNTHIA E. TOBISMAN, ESQ. ALANA H. ROTTER, ESQ. GREINES, MARTIN, STELN & RICHLAND LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Twelfth Fioor Los Angeles, California 90036 Telephone: (310) 859-7811 Facsimile: (310) 276-5261 E-Mail: tcoates@gmsr.com DIANA L, FIELD, Esq. FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN 1631 East Eighteenth Street Santa Ana, California 92705 Telephone: (714) 953-5300 Facsimile: (714) 953-1143 Counsel for Petitioner Christopher McDonough COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 TABLE OF CONTENTS REASONS TO GRANT PETITION IT] THIS CASE PRESENTS A PROPER VEHICLE TC RESOLVE THE INTER- CIRCUIT CONFLICT REGARDING WHETHER USE OF COERCED TESTI! MONY IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT A. The Third And Fourth Circuits Have Rejected Fifth Amendment Claims Based On Pretrial Use Of A Suspect’s Statements 8. This Case Presents An _ Excellent Vehicle For Resolving The Circuit Conflict REVIEW [S NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE INTER-CIRCUIT CONFLICT REGARDING WHAT CONSTITUTES COERCIVE INTERROGATION OF A MINOR SUSPECT UNDER THE FIFTH PERT T, nuicccossrxicsciscacssaceouares THE COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THE INTER-CIRCUIT CONFLICT REGARD ING WHETHER PURELY VERBAL CONDUCT NOT INCLUDING THREATS VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued Paye IV. REVIEW IS NECESSARY BECAUSI THE NINTH CIRCUIT REJECTED THE WELL-ESTABLISHED “SHOCKS-THE CONSCIENCE” STANDARD AS TO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS FOR DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL RE LATIONSHIP 14 CONCLUSION 111 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2005).....4, 6 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)............. 4,6, 7 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 RA SRRER ES CROs ny spe ete SAE nae ORE en a a 2,14 Cunningham v. Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802 (9th ech cases butch en's aa rane daw eked sniawnaras