United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
R. READE JUDGE.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ....................
STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................
Nature of Defendant's Responses ........................
Government Coercion ................................
Totality of the Circumstances ..........................
matter before the court is Defendant Deon Daye's
Objections (docket no. 38) to United States Chief Magistrate
Judge C.J. Williams's Report and Recommendation (docket
no. 22) recommending that the court deny Defendant's
“Motion to Suppress” (“Motion”)
(docket no. 15).
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
December 6, 2016, the grand jury returned a one-count
Indictment (docket no. 2) charging Defendant with perjury
before the grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
Specifically, Defendant is charged with falsely testifying
that (1) he had never met a person named Anthony Hall prior
to April 13, 2015, and (2) he had never been in a car with
Anthony Hall prior to April 13, 2015. See Indictment
at 2. On January 24, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion. On
January 27, 2017, the government filed a Resistance (docket
no. 17). On February 2, 2017, Judge Williams held a hearing
on the Motion. See Feb. 2, 2017 Minute Entry (docket
no. 19); see also Motion Hearing Transcript (docket
no. 34). At the motion hearing, Defendant appeared in court
with his attorney, Jennifer Bonzer. Assistant United States
Attorneys Lisa Williams and Emily Nydle appeared on behalf of
the government. On February 7, 2017, Judge Williams issued
the Report and Recommendation recommending that the court
deny the Motion. On February 21, 2017, Defendant filed the
Objections. The matter is fully submitted and ready for
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party files a timely objection to a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation, “[a] judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The
district judge must consider de novo any objection to the
magistrate judge's recommendation.”); United
States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003)
(noting that a district judge must “undertake a de
novo review of the disputed portions of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendations”). “A
judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see
also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation,
receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.”). It is reversible
error for a district court to fail to engage in a de novo
review of a magistrate judge's report when such review is
required. See Lothridge, 324 F.3d at 601.
Accordingly, the court reviews the disputed portions of the
Report and Recommendation de novo.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
on evidence presented at the motion hearing, Judge Williams
found the following facts, which are restated verbatim in the
A few days before March 16, 2016, FBI Safe Streets Task Force
Officer (TFO) John O'Brien served defendant with a grand
jury subpoena. On the morning of March 16, 2016, defendant
awoke at approximately 8:00 a.m. Between the time he woke and
about noon that day, he smoked eight marijuana blunts and
played video games. Defendant testified he consumed
approximately 1/8th of an ounce of marijuana. Defendant has
been a regular marijuana user since 2010, last using
marijuana around Christmas 2016. Defendant testified that
when he smoked marijuana on March 16, 2016, it made him
“lazy” and “out of my mind.” When
asked what that meant, defendant explained that it made him
“feel like my mind is elsewhere” and that he is
“not in his normal state of mind.” He testified,
though, that he could understand questions and perform normal
functions like tying his shoes, using a phone, operating a
motor vehicle, and working.
Defendant walked from his residence to the federal court
house in Cedar Rapids on the afternoon of March 16, 2016. He
met with TFO O'Brien and Assistant United States Attorney
(AUSA) Lisa Williams before he testified. AUSA Williams noted
the smell of marijuana and asked defendant if he had used
marijuana. Defendant admitted that he had smoked marijuana
that morning. AUSA Williams told defendant that he did not
have to testify that day and could choose to come back
another day when he had not smoked marijuana. Defendant
stated that he wanted to testify. AUSA Williams asked
defendant if the use of marijuana would affect his testimony.
Defendant replied that it would not. Defendant testified at
the hearing that he understood the question and thought it
was a trick question such that if he had answered in the
affirmative it would have gotten him in trouble.
Shortly thereafter, AUSA Williams took defendant before the
grand jury to question him. Defendant's testimony began
at 2:12 p.m. After the foreperson of the grand jury placed
defendant under oath, and prior to asking him any questions,
AUSA Williams advised defendant of certain rights and
obligations he had before the grand jury.
Q. You have just been sworn by the foreperson of the grand
jury and have taken an oath to testify truthfully. Do you
understand that oath?
Q. If you lie or knowingly make a false statement in your
testimony before the grand jury, you may be prosecuted for
the crimes of perjury or making a false declaration. If
convicted of such an offense, you may be sentenced to a