Lugo v. Borg, 81 F.3d 169 (9th Cir. 1996)

Recently, the Ninth Circuit denied habeas corpus relief to a California prisoner, a former police officer. Lugo, the prisoner, confessed to killing Lopez, the victim, and was charged with murder and the use of deadly weapons on April 18, 1988. Prior to trial, Lugo filed a motion to suppress his confession on the Fifth Amendment ground of involuntariness. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that, under the totality of the circumstances test, the confession was a product of his free will and there was no inappropriateness or lawless conduct on the part of the police.

The voluntariness of a confession is reviewed de novo. United States v. Kelly, 953 F.2d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 1992). According to Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985), the federal habeas court must make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of whether the confession was voluntary. Lugo alleges that his confession was involuntary because the police used coercion in the form of improper techniques such as (1) exploiting his lack of sleep; (2) exploiting his student-teacher relationship with one of the interrogating officers, and; (3) using a psychologist to determine his 'breaking point.'

The trial court determined that the use of the psychologist was not coercive. In fact, the court found that nothing in the record indicates that the psychiatrist was used to break Lugo's will. The court did, however, state that the use of a psychiatrist could render a confession involuntary. In Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954), the Court held that if the psychologist pretends to be a regular physician, attempts to extract a confession using hypnotic drugs, or proceeds with the session after the defendant has stated that he is tired and could not think, then the use of a psychiatrist or psychologist might render the confession involuntary. However, it appears that a psychiatrist or psychologist's presence alone will not render the confession involuntary. Instead, it is merely one factor in the totality of the circumstances analyzed by the courts.

Submitted by Ryan Farley
Emory Law School

Answer

No, not automatically.  Voluntariness is determined under the totality of the circumstances.