Skip to content
Name: People v. Castille
Case #: A089623
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/30/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 7/30/03; 3/22/04 Cert. granted, case vacated & remanded in light of Crawford.

Three defendants were tried together in a murder case. After their arrests, they participated in a joint interview after each had waived his right to remain silent. Once a statement was made by one of them, the other two were asked if what the original speaker had said was correct. In the vast majority of instances, each confirmed the original statements were true, and on occasion, corrected and clarified facts. At the conclusion of the interview, each expressly affirmed that he agreed with everything that had been discussed in the interview. The court held that…

View Full Summary
Name: Clark v. Murphy
Case #: 00-16727
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/23/2003
Subsequent History: Opn. amended & rehrg. den. 6/10/03

Because the accused’s request for counsel was ambiguous, officers were not required to cease questioning. Here, appellant sold his step-mother’s car without her permission and the step-mother was now missing. After his arrest, appellant was read his Miranda rights and he stated he understood them. Appellant was then interviewed and admitted the he had stolen the car and that he had done so for money. Later that day a second interview took place, this time with a homicide detective present. This officer again read appellant his Miranda rights and again appellant answered affirmatively that he…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leal
Case #: H023031
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/24/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 4/23/03

Police officers went to appellant’s house to investigate a claim that appellant had inappropriately touched two girls. The officer asked him questions about the girls’ claim, but did not arrest him, or restrict his movement in any way. The officer asked appellant to go to the police station with him, and appellant agreed. He was not handcuffed in the police vehicle. The officer did not Mirandize appellant, and on appeal, he argued that the statements made during that questioning should have been suppressed. The appellate court here rejected that claim, finding that the interrogation was…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. San Juan-Cruz
Case #: 02-50138
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/23/2002

The court found prejudicial error in the admission of the defendant’s statements in an illegal immigration case. He was found in this country after being deported and was told that he had the right to counsel, but not at the government’s expense, and that any statement he made could be used against him for purposes of administrative removal. Although defendant received complete and correct Miranda warnings shortly thereafter (including an advisement that any statements could be used against him in court or any immigration proceeding, and that a lawyer would be appointed if he could not afford…

View Full Summary
Name: Alvarado v. Hickman
Case #: 00-56770
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/18/2002
Subsequent History: 2/11/03: opn. amended & rehrg den.; cert. petn. filed 5/12/03

Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery, based primarily on statements he made during a two-hour interrogation when he was 17 years old. Appellant challenged the statements on Miranda grounds in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Ninth Circuit here held that the California Court of Appeal (and the district court on the initial habeas review) failed to address how appellant’s juvenile status, including the absence of his parents at the police department’s request, affected the "in custody" determination. Appellant’s youth and inexperience cannot be ignored, and the consideration of this factor…

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
Name: Beatty v. Stewart
Case #: 00-99007
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/27/2002
Subsequent History: Cert. den. 5/19/03

The Court of Appeal remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant’s confession to a prison psychiatrist was involuntary because he had been promised that all group therapy communication was…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Orso
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/08/2000
Subsequent History: None

Here, the officers arrested Orso and transported her to the Postal Inspection Service Office where they advised her of her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. They did not advise her of her rights during transport because they were afraid she would assert her right to counsel. During transport, they falsely informed Orso of evidence against her to make her fearful and elicited incriminating statements from her, including her admission that she knew one of the suspects. This created a "beachhead" which the officers were able to exploit to obtain her statement after…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thornton
Case #: G023913
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/29/2000
Subsequent History: Rehg. den. 12/29/00; rev. den. 3/14/01

Thornton gave police officers permission to search his car following a traffic stop. He volunteered the statement "I have only tried heroin. I am not really using it." Police officers subsequently issued standard warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and Thornton made no further statements. Police officers later found heroin in the back seat of their vehicle after transporting Thornton. On appeal from his conviction for possession of heroin, Thornton argued that the statement should not have been admitted. The appellate court here affirmed his conviction. The evidence was…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Amano
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/12/2000
Subsequent History: None

The court affirmed convictions for manufacturing and uttering counterfeit obligations. The defendant, a citizen of Japan moved to suppress his statements to investigating officers and his consent to search on the grounds that: 1) under the 1963 Japan Convention, he should have been advised of his right to contact a consular official; 2) his waiver of rights and consent to search were involuntary since a translator was not present and he was not advised of his right to contact a consular official. The court found controlling its previous en banc decision in United States v. Lombera-Carmorlinga (9th Cir.…

View Full Summary