United States v. Red Star
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant William Larry Red Star (“Red Star”) appeals his district court conviction and sentence for sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2242(2)(B). Red Star challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession, and the district court’s ruling preventing Red Star from questioning the victim regarding the content of a forensic medical report. We find no error and affirm.
First, the Government has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Red Star’s statements were voluntary. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). Red Star argues that polygraph machines are per se coercive. However, we have repeatedly upheld the use of polygraph machines as an interrogation method. See, e.g., United States v. Haswood, 350 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.2003) (“[t]he use of polygraph results is a reasonable means of police questioning”). There was no evidence of physical coercion.
To ascertain whether Red Star was psychologically coerced, we analyze the totality of the circumstances involved and the effect upon his will. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36…