Date: 07-03-2024

Case Style:

United States of America v. Jeromy Pittmann

Case Number: 22-CR-129

Judge: Landya McCafferty

Court: United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Merrimack County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney's Office in Concord

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Concord Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Concord, New Hampshire criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with fraud.

Defendant Jeromy Pittman is charged with four offenses related to an alleged scheme to receive payments for writing fraudulent letters of recommendation for Afghan nationals seeking Special Immigrant Visas. See doc. no. 24 (indictment). Presently before the court is Pittman's motion to suppress. Doc. no. 49. Pittman moves to suppress his allegedly involuntary statements on November 4, 2021, and any evidence derived from those statements, primarily on the ground that he was fatigued when he made his statements. For the following reasons, Pittman's motion is denied.

As of November 2021, Pittman was a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserves. He was also employed in a civilian capacity for the United States government in an overseas post, residing in Italy. His position in the Reserves, however, required him to regularly travel to the United States to attend drill. Moreover, Pittman had previously resided in Pensacola, Florida.

Pittman's obligations with the Reserves required him to attend drill in Gulfport, Mississippi on November 4 and 5, 2021. He arrived at his hotel in Gulfport at approximately 3:30 a.m. local time on November 4. He had been in transit for approximately thirty-one hours.[2] Pittman tried to sleep from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and then attended drill until 5:00 p.m.

When Pittman returned to his hotel at approximately 5:20 p.m. on November 4, he was approached by Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent Rachel McGranaghan and Special Agent Kevin Naylon with the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (“SIGAR”). The agents had previously planned to try and speak with Pittman while he was in Italy, but later changed their minds and decided to try and meet with him while he was in the United States to attend drill. Naylon identified himself with SIGAR and said he had some questions for Pittman. Pittman believed that Naylon's questions pertained to complaints Pittman had made about waste, fraud, and abuse while deployed to Afghanistan. He asked Naylon if the questions could wait until the next morning or some other time because he had been awake for the majority of the previous forty-five hours. Naylon told Pittman that the interview would not take more than a few minutes. Pittman agreed to speak with the agents.

At the beginning of the interview, the agents provided Pittman with a Garrity form and a Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) Article 31(b) waiver form. See Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); 10 U.S.C. § 831(b). Pittman asked why he was being given these forms. The agents told him that the forms were merely a formality. The agents did not read the forms to Pittman. Pittman signed and initialed both forms.

The agents questioned Pittman from approximately 5:50 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. about the allegations in this case. The questioning took place in a conference room at the hotel in Gulfport where Pittman was staying. At multiple points during the interview, Pittman said that he would prefer to pause the questioning so that he could get some sleep, as he was extremely tired from his travel and inability to get any meaningful sleep over the previous forty-five hours. The agents responded to Pittman's requests by telling him that they were almost finished and would not take much longer.

The government has provided a video recording of a portion[3] of the interview.[4] The video shows that Pittman appears tired. The agents acknowledged that Pittman was visibly tired on a few occasions. Naylon acknowledged that Pittman had “a pretty tough . . . schedule” due to the jet lag from his travel. McGranaghan acknowledged “you've gotta be tired. Yes, I can understand that.


What time is it in Italy I don't know.” Naylon knew that Pittman was “eager to go” but told him that “we're not far from being done.” However, while Pittman appears to be tired, he is not on the verge of falling asleep and he is able to answer the agents' questions in a lucid and coherent fashion. The video also shows that the agents were professional and courteous in their questioning and that they did not threaten Pittman in any manner or make promises of leniency.

* * *


The admission of a defendant's involuntary statement violates his right to due process. United States v. Jackson, 918 F.2d 236, 241 (1st Cir. 1990). A statement is involuntary if the officers overpowered the defendant's will such that “the statement was not his free and voluntary act.” United States v. Jacques, 744 F.3d 804, 809 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Bryant v. Vose, 785 F.2d 364, 367-68 (1st Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Hufstetler, 782 F.3d 19, 21 (1st Cir. 2015) (statement is involuntary if it is “coerced” and therefore not “the product of a rational intellect and free will” (quoting Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 (1963))). Courts consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a statement is involuntary. Jacques, 744 F.3d at 809. Relevant factors include “the length and nature of the questioning, promises or threats made by investigators, and any deprivation of the suspect's essential needs,” as well as “the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, education, intelligence, and mental condition,” and “his prior experience with the criminal justice system.” Id. The prosecution has the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. Hufstetler, 782 F.3d at 22.

Outcome: Motion to suppress denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: