United States v. Martinez.
Nos. 23-2193, 24-2002, and No. 24-2004. Miranda Advisement—Polygraph Test—Post-Polygraph Interview—Motion to Suppress Statements—Motion in Limine—Non-Hearsay Purpose.
November 19, 2024
Suazo and her boyfriend Martinez spent an evening consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana together at her home on the Taos Pueblo. In the early hours of the following morning, Martinez called members of his and Suazo’s families to tell them that he discovered Suazo deceased underneath her running vehicle outside her home. A family member contacted law enforcement officers, who observed significant injuries to Suazo’s body, some of which were consistent with being run over by a vehicle. Martinez subsequently proposed and later voluntarily agreed to undergo a polygraph test at the Taos Police Department. Agent Coyle advised Martinez of his Miranda rights, which he waived, and then administered a polygraph test to Martinez that consist of two sets of questions. The results of the second set of questions indicated deception in Martinez’s responses. Agent Coyle then engaged Martinez in a recorded post-test interview during which he made statements indicating that he pushed Suazo to the ground in front of her vehicle and then ran her over with it. Approximately six hours elapsed from when Martinez was first read his Miranda warnings to the conclusion of all interviewing. Martinez was then indicted on one count of second degree murder in Indian Country.
Martinez filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements he made during the post-polygraph interview, arguing that law enforcement should have re-Mirandized him before the post-polygraph interview. The government moved in limine to admit into evidence seven text message exchanges between Suazo and Martinez in which Suazo discussed breaking up with Martinez. The messages were intended for the non-hearsay purpose of showing Martinez’s belief that Suazo wanted to end their relationship, thereby providing him with a motive for murder. The government also filed a notice of intent seeking to elicit witness testimony of a prior instance of physical abuse perpetrated by Martinez against Suazo. The district court granted Martinez’s motion to suppress and denied the government’s motions. The government filed three separate notices of appeal to challenge orders, which the Tenth Circuit consolidated.
On appeal, the government argued that that the district court erred in suppressing Martinez’s post-polygraph statements by ruling that he was entitled to a new advisement of his Miranda rights before the post-test interview. Here, the government met its burden of demonstrating that Martinez validly waived his Miranda rights in connection with the post-polygraph interview because Martinez signed a waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights that was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and it was not limited in scope to only the polygraph test. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding otherwise. Second, the Tenth Circuit evaluated (1) the passage of time between the initial rights waiver and the subsequent interrogation, (2) whether material changes occurred in the location or environment between the initial and subsequent interrogation, (3) whether the subject matter of the questioning changed between the initial and subsequent interrogation, (4) whether Martinez was made aware that follow-up questions or another interrogation could occur, and (5) whether other circumstances suggested that the earlier Miranda warning’s effectiveness had diminished by the time of the subsequent interrogation. Considering these factors, the Tenth Circuit determined that the circumstances did not change so significantly between Martinez’s initial waiver and the polygraph test and the post-polygraph interview that he was required to be re-Mirandized and provided a new waiver before the post-polygraph interview. Therefore, the district court erred in suppressing Martinez’s post-polygraph statements.
The government also argued that the district court erred in excluding the text messages from Suazo to Martinez as inadmissible hearsay. Here, the government did not intend to offer the messages for the truth of the matter asserted but to show Martinez’s perception of his deteriorated relationship with Suazo, thus revealing Martinez’s motive to kill her. The text messages were thus offered for a non-hearsay purpose. Further, Martinez may present counterarguments to the jury challenging this evidence, and he may have other valid objections to admission of this evidence. Therefore, the district court erred in ruling in limine that the text messages must be excluded from the trial evidence as inadmissible hearsay.
Lastly, the government contended that the district court erred in excluding witness testimony that about 11 months before Suazo’s death, Martinez had pinned her down and strangled her so that she could not leave his home. Here, the district court ruled that Martinez’s statements to Agent Coyle were inadmissible before it ruled on this motion in limine under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision to suppress the post-polygraph statements, it likewise reversed and remanded the Rule 404(b) ruling for reconsideration in light of the changed evidentiary environment.
The rulings were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.