{"id":157882,"date":"2024-05-22T07:43:50","date_gmt":"2024-05-22T11:43:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/?post_type=case&p=157882"},"modified":"2024-12-18T13:41:01","modified_gmt":"2024-12-18T18:41:01","slug":"state-v-ochoa","status":"publish","type":"case","link":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa","title":{"rendered":"State v. Ochoa"},"menu_order":0,"template":"","supreme_court_term":[],"court":[],"class_list":["post-157882","case","type-case","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"case_number":"Nos. PD-0745-23, PD-0746-23, PD-0747-23","featured_image":"","issues":[46553],"court_type":"state_supreme_court","case_type":false,"supreme_court_term":null,"state_territory_affiliate":[350],"status":"closed","date_updated":"20240522","whats_at_stake":"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.","call_to_action":null,"summary":"Several mechanisms are in place to protect children from undue law enforcement coercion in Texas: The Texas Family Code, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. For a confession to be admissible under the Texas Code, a child must have knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their rights. However, factors like positive promises, the suspect\u2019s age, and the totality of the circumstances that brought about the confession can make a child\u2019s confession involuntary and thus inadmissible.\r\n\r\nIn 2018, a five-year-old in Texas went missing and was eventually found partially clothed and severely harmed. Appellant Emanuel Ochoa was fourteen at the time and living in the same household as this five-year-old. Ochoa was taken to a police station where Texas Ranger James Holland proceeded to question him for three hours. In this interrogation, Holland promised Ochoa he was not going to prison if he confessed, said he would help him through this, and called the crime \u201ca bump in the road.\u201d Ochoa eventually confessed to assaulting the child, and, using this confession, the trial court convicted and sentenced him to 55 years in prison.\r\n\r\nOchoa moved to suppress his confession, but the trial court denied this request. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s order, ruling that Ochoa\u2019s confession had been voluntary and was admissible because Holland did not make an unqualified promise to Ochoa.\r\n\r\nThe ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief in April 2024 arguing the Court of Appeals decision should be reversed. The brief argues that the admission of Ochoa\u2019s confession was incorrect for two reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, Holland\u2019s tactics rendered Ochoa\u2019s statements involuntary and thus inadmissible under the Texas Family Code, which requires a showing that \u201cthe child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive[d]\u201d his rights. Here, the state cannot meet that standard because Holland flat-out told Ochoa he would not go to prison if he confessed.\r\n\r\nSecond, Ochoa\u2019s confession was also involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 10, of the Texas Constitution. Far from requiring proof of an unequivocal or positive promise to render a confession involuntary, the constitutional tests look to the totality of the circumstances. Here, under the totality of the circumstances, Holland\u2019s intense, sustained campaign to persuade a child that confessing would bring him help, not imprisonment, rendered the childe\u2019s confession involuntary.\r\n\r\nIn November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In its opinion, the Court considered Ochoa's age, Ranger Holland's conduct, and the misinformation provided by the Magistrate to rule that under the totality of the circumstances Ochoa's confession was involuntary. The Court then remanded the case to the trial court for a harm analysis.","case_decision":"","featured_case":false,"legal_project":"","date_filed":null,"administration_challenged":"","constitutional_principle":[],"drupal_node_id":"","legal_documents":[{"court":null,"documents":[{"document_options":"document","document":195045,"title":"Opinion","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20241127","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null},{"document_options":"document","document":157883,"title":"ACLU Amicus Brief","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20240411","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null},{"document_options":"document","document":157884,"title":"State Brief","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20240312","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null},{"document_options":"document","document":157885,"title":"Appellant Brief","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20240312","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null}]}],"plaintiffs":"","co-counsel":"","press_releases_related_to_cases":"","related_content_cases":"","related_content_documents":"","related_content_publications":""},"yoast_head":"\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State v. Ochoa | American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-18T18:41:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@aclu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa\",\"name\":\"State v. Ochoa | American Civil Liberties Union\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-22T11:43:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-18T18:41:01+00:00\",\"description\":\"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/\",\"name\":\"American Civil Liberties Union\",\"description\":\"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State v. Ochoa | American Civil Liberties Union","og_description":"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa","og_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","article_modified_time":"2024-12-18T18:41:01+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@aclu","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa","name":"State v. Ochoa | American Civil Liberties Union","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-05-22T11:43:50+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-18T18:41:01+00:00","description":"This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant\u2019s confession following a Texas Ranger\u2019s coercive interrogation. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant\u2019s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-ochoa"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/","name":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.","inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/157882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/case"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/157882\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":195057,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/157882\/revisions\/195057"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affiliate_info\/350"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46553"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"supreme_court_term","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme_court_term?post=157882"},{"taxonomy":"court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/court?post=157882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}