US v. Ramos, No. 21-10184 (4-10-23)(Owens w/Bybee; Collins partial dissent and partial concurrence)(Note: This is an AZ FPD case). This appeal concerns a denial of a motion to suppress statements as involuntary and, pertinent, whether the district court properly adopted the magistrate’s report part and parcel (including a key factual error and credibility determination) without conducting an independent de novo review. The majority, over a dissent, finds the district court did not abuse its discretion by wholly adopting the magistrates’ record and recommendation finding the statements were not involuntary, despite the defendant alleging he was threatened and coerced.  The 9th writes the court did what the Federal Magistrate Act allows. When a district court states, on the record, it conducted such a review, the 9th takes it at face value, unless there is an error of law or apparent contradiction. Collins, dissenting on this issue, would find this district court might not have conducted such a review given his track record (concerns expressed in the past), and the sense that the same templates have been repeatedly used. The dissent points out the absence of any case specific or distinct facts in the order. The dissent uses the term “rubberstamp” for the 41/2 pages. (“Rubber Stamp” is defined as a person or organization that gives automatic approval or authorization to the decisions of others, without proper consideration).

 

A valiant effort by Elizabeth Kruschek, AFPD, AZ (Phoenix)

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/10/21-10184.pdf