Local, state and federal interrogators coerced a confession out of a murder suspect in Garfield County, and his resulting statements could have affected the jury’s verdict, Colorado’s second-highest court determined on Thursday.

There was no question that Gustavo Olivo-Tellez shot and killed his wife in Glenwood Springs early in October 2016. The dispute at trial was Olivo-Tellez’s mental state at the time, for which prosecutors pointed to Olivo-Tellez’s confession to police, when he suggested the slaying was premeditated.

However, Olivo-Tellez argued the trial court should have suppressed his confession because it was the product of impermissible coercion. A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals agreed, concluding it was only after interrogators promised that Olivo-Tellez’s girlfriend, Michelle Castillo, was going to prison if Olivo-Tellez did not confess that he relented.

“The conditional nature of this statement indicated, in no uncertain terms, that Castillo’s freedom was contingent on Olivo-Tellez’s confession,” wrote Judge Terry Fox in the panel’s July 21 opinion. “Indeed, implicit in this statement was both a threat and a promise: if Olivo-Tellez did not confess, Castillo would go to prison; if he did confess, she would be released.

“And it was only after this statement – indeed, immediately after – that Olivo-Tellez confessed,” she added.

Police arrested Olivo-Tellez on the morning of Oct. 8, 2016 and interrogated him in Grand Junction. His sister had contacted authorities the prior day, after Olivo-Tellez arrived at her house with Castillo and told her he had shot and killed his wife, Blanca Salas, near Glenwood Springs. At the time, Olivo-Tellez and Salas had been separated.

Olivo-Tellez spent approximately seven hours in custody for his interrogation, and was left alone and handcuffed for extended periods. Initially, Detective Dave Hatch of the Garfield County Sheriff’s Office and Agent Renzo Scavazzon of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security interviewed Olivo-Tellez. With Olivo-Tellez’s limited English proficiency, Scavazzon acted as a translator.

After agreeing to waive his Miranda rights and speak with the investigators, the interaction lasted from approximately 9 a.m. until 1 p.m., including breaks. Olivo-Tellez admitted to nothing about Salas’ murder, although Castillo, who was speaking to officers in another room, had already relayed information about what Olivo-Tellez had done.

At 12:48 p.m., Agent John Zamora of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation joined Olivo-Tellez’s interrogation along with Detective Matt Jenness from the sheriff’s office, and with Scavazzon still translating. The interrogation took a more assertive tone.

“What I do know is that she was with you,” Jenness said in English, speaking of Castillo. “She’s an accessory. … And she’s going with you.”

“She is going to jail, too,” translated Scavazzon.

Olivo-Tellez denied Castillo had done anything. The interrogators said that was untrue and Scavazzon reiterated Castillo would be jailed.

The interrogators continued to explain how Castillo could be criminally charged for helping Olivo-Tellez. After six hours in detention without a confession from Olivo-Tellez, there was a breakthrough after a brief exchange translated through Scavazzon.

“Say adiós to her daughter,” Zamora said in English. “I’m not playin’ a game. I’m giving you a chance to help her out – maybe she’s still going to prison – by telling the truth.”

Scavazzon, in turn, translated that Olivo-Tellez had a chance “to tell the truth, because if not, she’s going to jail.”

“Yes, I did it,” Olivo-Tellez then replied. He confessed to shooting Salas, saying he had known for several days he was going to kill her and was “burning inside” to do it.

District Court Judge John F Neiley would later rule Castillos’ statements in custody could not be used at trial because they were the product of police coercion. But Neiley denied Olivo-Tellez’s similar motion to suppress his confession. Olivo-Tellez defended himself at trial by claiming he was intoxicated and impaired through methamphetamine use, and also that he killed Salas in the “heat of passion.”

A jury convicted him of second-degree murder and Olivo-Tellez received a prison sentence of 48 years.

On appeal, Olivo-Tellez contended his statements were not the product of his free will, but a result of Scavazzon’s representation that Castillo was definitively going to jail unless Olivo-Tellez confessed.

“This is both a promise and a threat … if he did confess, she could be saved,” wrote Deputy State Public Defender Jessica Sommer. “Telling Olivo-Tellez that his confession could help Castillo out of lengthy prison sentence was highly coercive.”

The government claimed the interrogators’ comments were more benign, specifically that “they were giving him a chance to maybe help her even through she was going to prison by telling them the truth about killing Salas,” wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Kevin E. McReynolds.

Fox, in the appellate panel’s opinion, explained that a defendant’s statements to police must be voluntary to be used as evidence. Several factors determine whether law enforcement used coercion, including the presence of threats or promises.

“Having reviewed the interrogation video – with the aid of the translation transcripts in the record – we conclude that Olivo-Tellez’s confession to police was involuntary,” she wrote. “Specifically, the video reveals that Scavazzon made an implied threat and promise that, considering the totality of the circumstances, overbore Olivo-Tellez’s will.”

The problem lay solely with Scavazzon’s representation that Castillo’s freedom was contingent upon Olivo-Tellez confessing. Given that Olivo-Tellez had denied committing a crime for six hours, only to change course almost immediately after learning he could prevent Castillos’ incarceration, the appellate court saw clear evidence of coercion.

Because the jury heard Olivo-Tellez’s confessional statements suggesting premeditation, which undermined his defenses at trial, the coerced confession plausibly affected the verdict, Fox added. The panel consequently ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeals did not address two other claims Olivo-Tellez made. He had argued he did not knowingly and intelligently relinquish his Miranda rights due to, among other things, Scavazzon’s allegedly-faulty translations. Also, Olivo-Tellez alleged the prosecutor excused a Hispanic juror because of the man’s race, which the U.S. Supreme Court has long deemed a constitutional violation.

The case is People v. Olivo-Tellez.