In United States v. Wells, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-30009 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court affirmed James Wells’s convictions for killing two co-workers at a Coast Guard station.
On appeal, Wells argued that under the Fifth Amendment and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), statements he made to government investigators should have been suppressed because they were made under threat of loss of employment.
The Court rejected the claim. It held that, in the absence of a direct threat of loss of employment, the appropriate framework for the court is to consider both the public employee’s subjective belief and the objective reasonableness of that belief to determine whether the employee’s statements were improperly coerced. Only when both elements are satisfied is the employee entitled to suppression of his statements under Garrity. Applying this rule, the Court concluded suppression was not warranted.
The Court, however, vacated a restitution order because the district court improperly determined that it had discretion under the All Writs Act to order garnishment of a higher percentage of monthly payments than otherwise authorized under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
