Ricardo Munoz-Diaz was convicted of murder, robbery and burglary, but appealed his conviction on the grounds his incriminating statements made to police over the phone were coerced. This exercise requ

In October 2015, Ricardo Munoz -Diaz broke into the home of his former neighbor, Amalia

Lopez -Leon, erroneously believing she kept a large amount of money in safe. Holding a BB

gun on her, he ordered Lopez -Leon to open the safe and beat, choked, and ultimately

stabbed her after she was unable to get it open. After stealing her safe and selling her

valuables, Munoz -Diaz fled to Mexico.

The phone call: A bilingual police detective was able to reach Munoz -Diaz in Mexico by

phone and speak with him in Spanish with the assistance of two English -speaking

detectives.

Early in the conversation, the detective told Munoz -Diaz , “ I want to talk to you about the girl

that was killed here . I know that you were there and I just want to, to know why .... I’m not going

to look for you in Mexico...I’m just telling you that you can’t come back here, okay? But I want

you to please tell me what happened that day, and why.” Munoz -Diaz first denied being

involved and claimed he had only “found a dead girl” after he’d been sent to get the safe at

the neighbor’s house by his roommate Bernabe Mares .

DETECTIVE: Look ... I know that...you killed this girl. And please... just tell me what happened

that day because I know that [Mares] sent you. And I... want to get [Mares] because he took

advantage of you. And...I want to know because the family needs to know why, what

happene d. Okay?

MUNOZ -DIAZ : Yes, I know that....

DETECTIVE: Just...think about the family, the children she left behind, this girl, and so this

way God will forgive you. But first you need to help me with this.

MUNOZ -DIAZ : Yes, I accept that I did it.

Munoz -Diaz went on to provide a number of details about the killing. The detective (per the

court ruling) “tried to garner favor with Munoz -Diaz ” by saying things like “you’re a good

person and you made a mistake. Okay? But we want to find the people who are guilty for this”

and “I know you’re not a killer. You didn’t want to do this.” Munoz -Diaz gave consistent

responses admitting his guilt: “But I’m guilty” or “But well, I did it.” There were two exchanges

where the detective said he wasn’t coming to Mexico after Munoz -Diaz and Munoz -

Diaz responded in a manner confirming his guilt.

DETECTIVE: Tell me who helped you. I just want to talk to them — they didn’t do what you did,

but I need to speak to them. Okay? Just tell me the truth, okay, like I told you, I’m not going

over there to look for you nor....

MUNOZ -DIAZ : No, in fact I’m willing to pay for my acts.... DETECTIVE: But, um, but I swear that I don’t — I’m not going to go looking for you over there in

Mexico.I am just, um, telling you that you can’t come back here. You understand me? And if

you come back here, you’ll get arrested.

MUNOZ -DIAZ : Uh -huh. I know. Hey and I’m willing to pay for my — my doings

MUNOZ -DIAZ also told the detective: “I want to clear this all up, if it’s even possible I’d go

back there. It’s no problem....To pay for my fault.” The phone call ended with the detective

thanking Munoz -Diaz and Munoz -Diaz replying , “Don’t mention it and I’m willing to

cooperate.”

Evidence and Trial : Munoz -Diaz ’s statements led to recovering the victim’s purse and

security footage of Munoz -Diaz purchasing a dolly to move the victim’s safe , as well as other

evidence against him . Munoz -Diaz had also sold the victim’s watches to pawnshops under

his own name and his DNA was found at the crime scene. He was then extradited to Colorado

and charged with first degree murder after deliberation. At trial, h e did not deny killing his

neighbor and was convicted of lesser murder charges and other charges related to

burglary/robbery after arguing he lacked intent as he had been intoxicated at the time. He

was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Munoz -Diaz appealed his convictions , arguing that the statements he made to the

detective on the telephone were involuntary , that the detective had acted coercively by

making promises and appealing to his religion.

The Colorado Court of Appeals denied Munoz -Diaz ’s appeal. In considering whether the

statements Munoz -Diaz made were voluntary, the Court said, “ Analyzing whether a

statement was voluntary is a two -step inquiry, asking (1) whether the official conduct was

coercive and (2) whether the coercive conduct “played a significant role in inducing the

statements.” Both steps included many factors to consider about the defendant, such as

whether he was in custody or free to leave, applicability of his Miranda rights and all those

rights entail, and whether any of the factors that are seen to induce involuntary statem ents

during interrogations were present in this case.

The Court considered points that favored the statements Munoz -Diaz made as being

voluntary, including that Munoz -Diaz was not in custody during the call and could hang up,

he could have consulted an attorney, he seemed mentally sound and had been at work when

he took the call. Factors that pointed to the statements being involuntary concerned that he

was not given the Miranda warning, the police promised that they would not come to Mexico

to find him, and it was a rather long phone call.

There were also factors that covered both sides, such as Munoz -Diaz wasn’t aware the

conversation could lead to his being extradited since the detective had said they wouldn’t

come for him although the detective was very clear in telling Munoz -Diaz he wanted to

discuss the murder. Also, if Munoz -Diaz took the detective’s statement not to look for him in Mexico as a promise, that it was made over a telephone helped lend credibility to the

statement and allow Munoz -Diaz to feel no threat and disengage.

The Court found that “some of the detective’s questioning was arguably coercive”. At three

different times during the conversation, the detective told Munoz -Diaz he couldn’t return to

Colorado or he’d be arrested but also that the detective wouldn’t come to Mexico either. The

Court acknowledged a lower court ruling that held this constituted a promise to Munoz -Diaz

he wouldn’t be extradited. But this is only step one of the test and the next question is

“whether the detective’s actions here played a significant role in inducing Munoz -Diaz ’s

statements. In other words, the detective ’s prom ises not to come after Munoz -Diaz in Mexico

must have overcome Munoz -Diaz ’s will.” The Court ruled the promises had not. Munoz -Diaz

repeatedly told the detective he was “willing to pay” for what he had done by going back to

Colorado despite being repeatedly told by the detective that he would be arrested if he

returned to Colorado.

The Court also didn’t feel that statements the detective made appealing to Munoz -Diaz ’s

religious views and the need of the victim’s family for closure indicated coercion. The Court

ends by stating, “ We thus agree with the district court that the prosecution showed, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that Munoz -Diaz ’s statements were not brought about by

coercive police conduct but rather were the product of his willingness — even desire — to

“pay for his acts” and to “clear this all up.” In other words, his statements were freely self -

determined and voluntary. ”