Skip to content
Name: Taylor v. Maddox
Case #: 02-55560
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/10/2004
Subsequent History: Cert. den. 12/13/04

Appellant was sixteen years old when he was arrested for murder. The arrest took place at 11;30 p.m., and officers found appellant alone in the home, sleeping. He was taken to the police station and interrogated for three hours, and given no food or rest breaks. Neither his mother nor counsel were present. Appellant testified that he asked for his mother and for his attorney repeatedly. He did not know what he was signing when he was told to sign a Miranda waiver. There was no recording of the three hours preceding the eleven…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wheelock
Case #: A096854
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/06/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/30/04

The issuance of an arrest warrant and extradition proceedings against the defendant did not trigger his right to counsel. The defendant moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials in Utah after he was arrested and held pending extradition to California. He argued that questioning outside the presence of an attorney violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a right that he argued was triggered by the issuance of a California arrest warrant, or in the alternative by the commencement of extradition proceedings. The court rejected both arguments, holding that neither proceeding was sufficient to…

View Full Summary
Name: Jackson v. Giurbino
Case #: 02-57117
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/26/2004

In Jackson's capital murder trial, the jury heard a taped interview in which Jackson admitted he was present when the victim was killed. Sergeant Barnes interviewed Jackson twice before the third and final interview, which was the one which was taped and entered into evidence. Prior to the first two interviews, Jackson was advised of his rights per Miranda v. Arizona, but there was no Miranda warning prior to the third interview. The second interview, which took place one year before the third, was cut short when Jackson asserted his right to remain silent. The third…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Bautista
Case #: 02-50664
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/26/2004

Bautista manufactured counterfeit currency while staying in a San Diego hotel room. He used a stolen credit card to reserve the room. When the hotel owner found the card was stolen, he informed police, who searched the room with the consent of Bautista's wife. The search led to the discovery of the counterfeit currency. Bautista was arrested and gave a confession. Bautista filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress the evidence seized from the warrantless search of the hotel room, and the statements made while in custody. The appellate court here reversed the denial of…

View Full Summary
Name: Fellers v. United States
Case #: 20-Feb
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/26/2004
Subsequent History: cross cites: 124 S. Ct. 1019; 157 L. Ed. 2d 1016

Where officers deliberately elicited information from a suspect after he had been indicted, the information required suppression under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and subsequent statements should have been suppressed as the fruit of the first unlawfully elicited statements. In this case officers went to talk to Fellers following his indictment in order to discuss his involvement in the offenses with which he was charged. During the discussion he made several inculpatory statements. After spending about fifteen minutes with Fellers, the officers transported him to the county jail, where they advised him for the first time…

View Full Summary
Name: Maryland v. Pringle
Case #: 02-809
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 12/15/2003
Subsequent History: Cross cites: 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769

Defendant’s confession did not require suppression where it resulted from a lawful arrest undertaken with probable cause. An officer stopped a car for speeding and saw a large amount of cash in the glove compartment while the driver was retrieving his registration. The driver consented to a search of the car, and officers found cocaine in the back seat. All three passengers, including the defendant, were arrested and taken to the police station. The defendant waived his rights under Miranda and confessed that he was the owner of the drugs. He later moved to…

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: People v. Riva
Case #: B157868
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/22/2003
Subsequent History: None

In appellant's first trial, statements he had made during a jail interview were held to be inadmissible. The first trial ended in a mistrial, and the case was reassigned to another judge for retrial. Appellant again moved to exclude all statements made to police and also argued that the second judge was bound by the first judge's ruling excluding the statements. The second judge held that he was not bound by the decisions made at the first hearing, and disagreed with them. The second judge allowed the prosecution to introduce the statements, and appellant was convicted.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Neal
Case #: S106440
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/14/2003
Subsequent History: None

A police officer in his initial interrogation of appellant intentionally continued the interrogation in deliberate violation of Miranda, in spite of appellant's repeated (nine times) invocation of his right to remain silent and his request to speak with an attorney. Not only did the officer continue questioning, but he badgered appellant, accusing him of lying and offering to help him if he cooperated. Appellant did not confess during this session. Then, the officer put appellant in custody overnight without access to counsel, or food, drink, or toilet facilities. The following morning, appellant asked to speak with the…

View Full Summary
Name: Chavez v. Martinez
Case #: 01-1444
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/27/2003
Subsequent History: None

In a severely divided opinion, a plurality held that where petitioner was interrogated in violation of Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), but he was never charged with a crime and his answers were never used against him in a criminal proceeding, his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. Thus, he could not maintain a civil rights action based upon violation of a Fifth Amendment right against the officer who interrogated him. In a part of the opinion joined by five members of the court, the matter was ordered remanded to determine if a violation of…

View Full Summary