United States v. Jason Wright

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 14 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10215

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:03-cr-01908-RCC-

CRP-1

v.

JASON A. WRIGHT, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10664

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:03-cr-01908-RCC-

CRP-1

v.

JASON A. WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014 San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jason Wright appeals his conviction for possession of child pornography

under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and his sentence of time served and three years

of supervised release with special sex offender conditions. We…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join the court’s decision except for the part holding that Wright’s confession was *558 voluntary. There is no question that Wright was promised that he would not be arrested no matter what he said during his interrogation. Whether this meant that he would not be prosecuted is a matter we need not decide. Either way the promise was such as would invalidate Wright’s confession if it was the cause of his confessing. To the extent that the district court assessed Wright’s credibility, it rejected his testimony in all respects. It made no exception for his statement that he thought he was going to be taken away regardless of what he said. Because the district court made no express finding on that point, its factual findings, or lack of factual findings, as to the effect of the government’s unlawful promise on Wright render it impossible to conclude that the government carried its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright’s statement was voluntary. See United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148 , 1153 n. 5 (9th Cir.2006) (“The government must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.” (citing Lego v. Twomey,…

MEMORANDUM *

Jason Wright appeals his conviction for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and his sentence of time served and three years of supervised release with special sex offender conditions. We affirm his conviction, but reverse some of the special terms of his supervised release. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. 1

I

The district court did not improperly admit statements made by Wright to law enforcement officers during the execution of a search warrant at his home. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo and the district court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.2008). In doing so, we accord “special deference to the district court’s credibility determinations” regarding testimony. Id.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Wright was advised of his Miranda rights and at no time asked to speak with a lawyer. Assuming, without deciding, that the officers made an impermissible promise to Wright when they told him he would not be arrested no matter what he said, the district court did not…