Skip to content
Name: U.S. v. Amano
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/12/2000
Subsequent History: None

As to the voluntariness of the Miranda waiver by a person whose native language is not English, the court noted that the factors considered include whether a written waiver was signed, whether the waiver was in the individual's native language, whether the person appeared to understand the rights, whether a translator was used, whether the rights were painstakingly given, and whether the person had previous contacts with the justice system. Here the trial court believed two officers' testimony that each had advised the defendant of his rights and he said in English that he understood, and he seemed to…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Foster
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/13/2000
Subsequent History: None

The district court did not err in determining that appellant's statements were not the product of improper interrogation. First, the officer's routine booking questions do not constitute an interrogation. Second, the officer's comments during conversation between appellant and the officer were not calculated to elicit responses from appellant, and therefore did not constitute an…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Storm
Case #: S088712
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/15/2002
Subsequent History: Affirmed.

During an investigation of his wife’s homicide, defendant agreed to take a polygraph test. At the police station he received Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) warnings and waived his rights, but after he was told he failed the test, he invoked his Miranda rights. Rather than cease questioning as required by Miranda and Edwards (Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477) in a custodial setting, the polygraph operator encourage appellant to keep talking. Defendant said he killed his wife as part of an assisted suicide. Defendant was permitted to leave the station…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Velarde-Gomez
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/13/2000
Subsequent History: None

The district court erred in allowing comment on appellant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) silence, even though he subsequently waived his right to remain silent and gave a statement to customs agents. The error, however, was harmless. Because appellant made inconsistent statements, and solely possessed a substantial amount of marijuana , the Court of Appeals concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have convicted appellant without the comments upon his post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. In contrast, the admission into evidence of appellant's demeanor at the time he was accused of marijuana importation did…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Kim
Case #: 01-30166
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 06/06/2002
Subsequent History: None

Police officers had information that appellant’s store was dealing in large quantities of ephedrine. They executed a search warrant on appellant’s store, and handcuffed and questioned her son, who was working at the time. When appellant arrived, the store was locked, and no one was allowed in. Appellant, who did not speak English well, was not told that she was free to leave. She was questioned for 30 minutes before a Korean interpreter arrived, and for another 30 minutes after one did. At no time did she receive Miranda warnings. Appellant filed a pretrial…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Reilly
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/11/2000
Subsequent History: None

The public safety exception excused the FBI agents from giving appellant his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 before asking where the gun was. This question was not investigatory, but rather was designed to assure officer safety, and was sufficiently limited in scope to quelling a volatile…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Reilly
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/11/2000
Subsequent History: None

While the officer's continued questioning of appellant, after he requested counsel, violated appellant's constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals refused to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine to excuse the officer's misconduct. Excusing the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cause and could have inevitably obtained a warrant would completely obviate the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. The matter was reversed and remanded for a new…

View Full Summary
Name: Laboa v. Calderon
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/11/2000
Subsequent History: None

The district court here properly denied Laboa's habeas petition because even if the confession of another participant in the crimes had been suppressed for use in Laboa's trial, the result would not have been different. The redacted portion of the confession added nothing to the evidence against Laboa. As a result the use of Denney's confession did not result in actual prejudice under Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993) 507 U.S. 619,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Box
Case #: S019798
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/17/2000
Subsequent History: Rehearing denied 10/3/00

In this death penalty appeal, the trial court correctly rejected appellant's claims of violations of his constitutional rights to due process, an impartial jury and a reliable death verdict, which were premised on the trial court's denial of appellant's request to permit the defense to conduct sequestered, individual voir dire of prospective jurors who had, or who had spent time with, small children. The trial court here conducted voir dire pursuant to Proposition 115, codified as section 223 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. It conducted most of the voir dire itself and in open court. However,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hector
Case #: B124669
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/23/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 12/13/00

Because People v. Burton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 375, 383-384, held that a juvenile's request to speak to a parent must be construed as an invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment privileges unless there is "evidence demanding a contrary conclusion," the appellate court's consideration of the application of the Burton rule required consideration of the circumstances surrounding this minor's request. Here, in asking to speak to his mother, the minor was not invoking his privileges pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, to request an attorney or to remain silent. Appellant was a 17-year-old young man with…

View Full Summary