Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 876 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 4

TERRENCE M. JACKSON, ESQ.

Nevada Bar # 0854
LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE M. JACKSON
624 South Ninth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
T: 702.386.0001 / F: 702.386.0085
terry.jackson.esq@gmail.com

Counsel for Defendant, Gregory P. Burleson

2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GREGORY P. BURLESON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
VIDEO TAPED INTERVIEW

14
Certification: This motion is timely filed.
15
COMES NOW Defendant, GREGORY P. BURLESON, by and through counsel,
16
TERRENCE M. JACKSON, ESQ., and moves this honorable court to enter an order to suppress as
17
evidence the video tape recorded interview of Defendant, Gregory P. Burleson, in which he made
18
admissions to Longbow Productions Company on or about October 27, 2014.
19
As grounds for this motion an evidentiary hearing will establish that this video was made
20
while the Defendant Burleson was extremely intoxicated. He was not therefore capable of
21
knowingly or intelligently making a waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, his right to due
22
process of law and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
23
An evidentiary hearing will establish that Longbow Productions had supplied
24
Burleson multiple alcoholic drinks before the interview, then continued supplying him with alcohol
25
with the deliberate intent to induce him to make incriminating admissions. The evidentiary hearing
26
will also show that Longbow Productions is a quasi law enforcement group designed to investigate
27
the Bundy Ranch standoff occurring in April 2014. Law enforcement agents who conducted this
28
interview, under the rubric of Longbow Productions, knew Burleson had a weakness for alcohol

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 876 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3

and deliberately took advantage of his weakness.

The 302 Reports later prepared however do not even mention this fact although it is clear on
the video tapes that Burleson was consuming alcohol during the questioning.

4
5

ARGUMENT
I.

Any statement or confession improperly induced by law enforcements

use of alcohol intoxication involuntary and unconstitutional.

7
In order to be considered a knowing, voluntary and admissible statement or confession, it
8
must be the product of a rational intellect and free will. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208
9
(1960). The court must consider the totality of circumstances affecting the will of the defendant.
10
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-227 (1973). A key question to be decided, in each
11
case, is whether or not the defendants will was overborne when he confessed. Id. at 225, 226.
12
In this case, the evidentiary hearing will show that there were extraordinary efforts by
13
government agents to ply the defendant with copious amounts of alcohol before and during the video
14
interrogation process. Although, there may be some cases in state and federal courts finding that
15
mere intoxication is not enough to render a confession involuntary, such cases also recognize the
16
totality of circumstances must be considered and sometimes the facts do require finding a confession
17
should be considered inadmissable when the intoxication is great enough to make the confession
18
unreliable or involuntary. See, State v. Curry, 617 P.2d 785 (Ariz. 1980), State v. Corona, 655 P.2d
19
216 (1982).
20
Consider such cases finding that the Defendants intoxication alone does not automatically
21
make a confession inadmissable. See, for example, United States v. Casal, 915 F.2d 1225, 1229 (8th
22
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 491 (1991) (methamphetamine use for four days prior to arrest
23
and confession); Graves v. United States, 878 F. Supp. 409, 414 (N.D.N.Y.), affd, __ F.3d __ (2d
24
Cir. 1995) (alcohol consumption); State v. Rivera, 733 P.2d 1090, 1096-97 (Ariz. 1987) (alcohol
25
consumption); A confession is inadmissable only if it is shown that the accused was intoxicated
26
to such an extent that he was unable to understand the meaning of his comments. Rivera, 733
27
P.2d at 1097 (quoting State v. Hicks, 649 P.2d 267, 275 (Ariz. 1982)). Similarly, a confession by
28
2

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 876 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 4

a defendant suffering from drug withdrawal may be involuntary when the withdrawal results in a

confession which is not the product of a rational intellect and a free will. Pickworth v. State, 95 Nev.

547, 549, 598 P.2d 626, 627 (1979).

This case however was not mere intoxication but far more. An evidentiary hearing will

conclusively establish that Burlesons statements were not the product of a rational intellect and that

he had been manipulated into making statements while Government agents video taped him. He of

course had no legal advice or assistance during the process. It is respectfully submitted such actions

by the Government agents were willful and outrageous misconduct that violated the Defendants

Sixth Amendment and his due process rights and the Government should not benefit in anyway from

10

such evidence.

11

CONCLUSION

12

Again, in assessing the voluntariness of a defendants statements, no one factor is

13

determinative; rather, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. United States v. Kelley,

14

953 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting, Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986), cert. denied, 484

15

U.S. 834 (1987)); Mincy v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,412 U.S. 218

16

(1973); 18 U.S.C. 3501. The factors to be considered include the characteristics of the accused and

17

the details of the interrogation. Kelley, 953 F.2d at 565; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,412 U.S. 218,

18

226 (1973); 18 U.S.C. 3501.

19
20
21
22

The totality of circumstances in this case will establish Defendants admissions were
involuntary and therefore inadmissible in evidence.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,

23

27

/s/ Terrence M. Jackson

TERRENCE M. JACKSON, ESQUIRE
Nevada Bar No.: 00854
Law Office of Terrence M. Jackson
624 South Ninth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
T: 702-386-0001 / F: 702-386-0085
Terry.jackson.esq@gmail.com

28

Counsel for Defendant, Gregory P. Burleson

24
25
26

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 876 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE

2
3

I hereby certify that service of the above entitled MOTION TO SUPPRESS VIDEO TAPED

INTERVIEW was made this 13th day of October, 2016, upon the parties in this action by CM/ECF

(electronic filing) as follows:

6
7

DANIEL G. BOGDEN

United States Attorney

STEVEN MYHRE

10

Steven.Myhre@usdoj.gov

11

First Assistant United States Attorney

12

NICHOLAS D. DICKINSON

13

Nicholas.Dickinson@usdoj.gov

14

Assistant United States Attorney

15

NADIA AHMED

16

Nadia.Ahmed@usdoj.gov

17

Special Assistant United States Attorney

18
19
20
/s/ Ila C. Wills

21

By:

22

Legal Assistant to Terrence M. Jackson

23
24
25
26
27
28
4