The following summary is from 5 Informer 25 (authored by the Legal Division staff of DHS at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center):

United States v. Maytubby, 130 F.4th 1194 (10th Circuit 2025)

A police officer interviewed Lance Maytubby at the police station regarding allegations of sexual abuse made by Maytubby’s nieces R.L. and Z.L. The interview, which was recorded on the officer’s body camera, took place in the break room at the police station with the dooropen. The officer told Maytubby that he did not have to talk, that he was not under arrest, and that he could leave at any time.

After Maytubby denied the allegations, the officer told him the two nieces’ stories were “dead-on similar,” and that the accusations had “stuff to back it up.” The officer then suggested that an “excuse” might explain what had happened, something like a mental-health issue, drinking, or drug use, but Maytubby continued to deny the accusations.

About a minute later, the officer told Maytubby that he needed to deliver an investigation report to the district attorney. He told Maytubby that he wanted the report to include all mitigating circumstances, like that Maytubby was a pastor who had made a mistake, had long been a “working man” and “family man,” and had just “acted out of character.” The officer reiterated he wanted to report that Maytubby made a mistake and that he was not “any kind of predator,” and that the behavior “hasn’t happened since.”

After he continued to deny the accusations, the officer explained that Maytubby’s denials put him in a difficult spot in reporting to the district attorney. The officer reminded Maytubby that he was not required to speak to him, and he reassured Maytubby that he was not going to arrest him that day. However, the officer also stated that his desire to include mitigating information in the investigative report depended on Maytubby’s admitting his sexual contact with his nieces. The officer told Maytubby, “I can’t help you out if you’re not honest to me, I just can’t. I can’t go in there and say, ... ‘Hey, he manned up. This is how it is. The guy acted out of character.’” Maytubby then told the officer that he wanted to go home, and the officer replied, “Okay.” A few seconds later, Maytubby confessed to sexually abusing his nieces.

The government indicted Maytubby for several sexual abuse-related offenses. Maytubby filed a motion to suppress his interview statements as involuntary, arguing that the officer’s coercive tactics overbore his will. The district court denied the motion. Upon conviction, Maytubby appealed.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” For an incriminating statement to be voluntary, it must not be “the product of coercion, either physical or psychological.” Coercion may take the form of “acts, threats, or promises which cause the defendant’s will to be overborne.”

First, the court determined that the fact that the interview lasted less than thirty minutes, the tone of the interview was conversational, the interview occurred in a break room with the door open, and the interview included no physical punishment weighed in favor of finding a voluntary confession.

Next, the court found that the officer’s offer to include mitigating facts in his investigative report to the district attorney if Maytubby admitted his nieces’ accusations were proper. The officer never implied that he had control over the sentence Maytubby might receive but instead made general statements to Maytubby about the benefit of cooperating, which has repeatedly been held to be a permissible interrogation tactic. Based on these facts, the court concluded that Maytubby’s statements were voluntary as none of the officer’s statements were coercive, and Maytubby’s will was not overborne.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/23-7084/23-7084-2025-03-18.pdf

~ Colin