Skip to content
Name: Anderson v. Terhune
Case #: 04-17237
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/08/2006

Where a defendant's attempted invocation of his right to remain silent was ambiguous, the officer's subsequent questioning seeking clarification did not violate Miranda rights. During a police interrogation, Anderson stated "I don't even wanna talk about this no more," "Uh! I'm though with this," and "I plead the Fifth." The state court concluded that while Anderson articulated words that could, in isolation, be viewed as an invocation of his right to remain silent, given the totality of the circumstances, Anderson did not intend to terminate the interview. The appellate court here held that the state court's factual and legal conclusion…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Terrell
Case #: A110124
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/08/2006

Following his arrest for murder, 18-year-old Terrell made incriminating statements during a police interview. Police continued to question Terrell after he invoked his right to remain silent. At the conclusion of the interview, he asked to call his mother. He told his mother that he had killed someone accidentally during a robbery. The trial court suppressed the statements to police as coerced, but admitted the phone call because it was not coerced. The appellate court affirmed. Terrell's telephonic statements were admissible even if his confession under police interrogation was not. Terrell initiated the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Viray
Case #: H026515
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/14/2005

A complaint was filed charging appellant with committing elder abuse. On the day of her arraignment, the prosecutor and an investigator interrogated her. She had no counsel present and was not advised that she had a right to counsel. Her statements were subsequently admitted at her court trial without objection. On appeal, she argued that the interrogation was a violation of Massiah v. United States, and that the statements should have been excluded. The appellate court agreed that there had been a violation of appellant's right to counsel, but that the error was not reversible…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Charley
Case #: 03-10579
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/07/2004

Appellant shot three of her six children. She then called police, and told them they needed to check on her children. Police met her at a relative's home, and brought appellant to her own home to check on the children. Appellant told officers that she had done something very bad, and that they were going to have to put her away for a long time. She told an EMT that she had killed the children. Appellant was told she was not under arrest at the time she was taken to her home. After the…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Haswood
Case #: 02-10516
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/01/2003
Subsequent History: None

The defendant’s statements to the FBI regarding sexual abuse allegations were not coerced despite the fact that the FBI agent had shown defendant news reports regarding a different defendant who had lied to the agent about unrelated child molestation charges and who was subsequently convicted of both the substantive offenses and making false statements to the investigator. The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order suppressing the statements, holding that the act of showing the news articles to the defendant was not coercive, but merely informed the defendant of the penalties he…

View Full Summary
Name: Padilla v. Terhune
Case #: 01-56325
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/29/2002
Subsequent History: None

The admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s custodial confession was harmless error, where defendant’s guilt of murder was established by other strong evidence, and the confession was merely cumulative on the issue of intent to rob. Other hearsay testimony regarding statements against penal interest by either defendant or the nontestifying codefendant were sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to be admitted. Finally, double hearsay testimony by Munoz regarding statements by a codefendant immediately after the crime was doubly admissible as trustworthy and did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the first and second declarants testified at trial and they…

View Full Summary