## Facts

- Mark Stephen Palmquist, a Marine Corps veteran and VA employee, sought service-connected disability benefits for a back injury.
- After six prior unsuccessful attempts to increase benefits, he submitted a memorandum purportedly from a Marine Corps official stating his back injury occurred in service; the memorandum was forged and supplied the only evidence establishing service connection.
- A VA Office of Inspector General criminal investigator interviewed Palmquist at his VA workplace after receiving fraud tips.
- The investigator identified himself as a criminal investigator, stated the interview was voluntary, and told Palmquist he could not be fired or punished for refusing to answer questions.
- Palmquist was given an advisement form stating he need not participate and could not be fired for refusing, but that his silence could be considered in administrative employment proceedings.
- Palmquist read and signed the advisement, was not restrained, and participated in a cooperative, conversational interview in which he made potentially incriminating statements.
- Palmquist was charged with fraud-related offenses and entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion; the court also ordered restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether Palmquist’s statements to the VA OIG investigator were compelled under the Fifth Amendment as construed in *Garrity* because employment-related consequences made his choice to speak involuntary.
2. Whether restitution for benefits fraud must be reduced by amounts Palmquist claimed he could have received through other lawful VA benefit theories.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression, holding *Garrity* did not apply and the statements were voluntary.
- The court found no express or implied threat that Palmquist would be terminated for refusing to answer.
- The First Circuit affirmed the restitution order, holding the loss equaled the benefits paid on the fraudulently supported claim and need not be offset by speculative alternative entitlements.

## Legal Principles

- *Garrity* bars use of public-employee statements in criminal cases only when the statements are obtained under an express or fairly implied threat of job loss for refusing to answer.
- Advising an employee that silence may be considered in administrative proceedings, while also stating the employee cannot be fired for refusing to participate, does not by itself establish *Garrity* compulsion.
- Voluntariness of statements is assessed under the totality of circumstances, including setting, restraint, tone, and whether participation was described as optional.
- In benefits-fraud restitution, actual loss generally equals the amounts paid because of the fraud; unproven or contingent claims of lawful entitlement do not reduce restitution.

## Conclusion

The court held that a voluntary workplace interview lacking a termination threat does not trigger *Garrity* and that restitution for benefits fraud is not reduced by hypothetical alternative benefits the defendant might have pursued.


United States v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 2013)