davis v united states case brief 1994

§ 831, and Rules 304 and 305 of the Military Rules of Evidence.

Smith v. Illinois, supra, 469 U.S., at 95, 105 S.Ct., at 492 (emphasis added), quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless a suspect clearly requests an attorney. . Further, although the Sealed Motion court explicitly relied in its reasoning on the "sui generis nature of the Independent Counsel Act and its specific provisions", 279 U.S.App.D.C.

Police officers would be forced to make difficult judgment calls about whether the suspect in fact wants a lawyer even though he hasn't said so, with the threat of suppression if they guess wrong. In Miranda itself, we expressly rejected the suggestion "that each police station must have a 'station house lawyer' present at all times to advise prisoners," 384 U.S., at 474, 86 S.Ct., at 1628, and held instead that a suspect must be told of his right to have an attorney present and that he may not be questioned after invoking his right to counsel.

6(e)(1). The Trial Court declined to suppress the incriminating statements he made during the interview finding that he had not requested counsel and that the agents properly determine that he was not indicating a desire to have an attorney present. The majority acknowledges, ante, at ____, that we have declined (despite the persistence of divergent approaches in the lower courts) to decide the operative rule for such ambiguous statements, see, e.g., Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 529, n. 3, 107 S.Ct.

6, see infra note 16, where the alleged violation "harm[s] ... his interests as a defendant in a criminal trial." State v. Walkowiak, 515 N.W.2d 863 (Wis.1994) (Abrahamson, J., concurring) (suggesting means properly to focus clarification enquiry). Id., at 98, 105 S.Ct., at 494.6 While it might be fair to say that every statement is meant either to express a desire to deal with police through counsel or not, this fact does not dictate the rule that interrogators who hear a statement consistent with either possibility may presume the latter and forge ahead; on the contrary, clarification is the intuitively sensible course. On the facts presented we find no abuse of discretion. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971), in support of his argument for dismissal. Later, when presented with a photographic array, the victim identified a photograph of appellant as her assailant.

M. Evan Corcoran, Asst. We also noted that if a suspect is "indecisive in his request for counsel," the officers need not always cease questioning. On the Charleston Naval Base, Keith Shackleton lost a game of pool and a $30 wager to Robert L. Davis. See Alexander, supra, 428 A.2d at 52. Thus, appellant has failed to establish the second prong of the Alexander *493 test, which requires a showing that the need for disclosure is greater than any continuing need for secrecy.

Extending Edwards to create such a requirement would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly irrational obstacles to legitimate investigative activity by needlessly preventing the police from questioning a suspect in the absence of an attorney, even if the suspect does not wish to have one present. This "second layer of prophylaxis for the Miranda right to counsel," McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 176, 111 S.Ct. Another sailor, Keith Shackleford, lost a game and a $30 wager to petitioner, but Shackleford refused to pay.

2350129 L.Ed.2d 362, Robert L. DAVIS, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. It fully accommodates the rights of the subject, while at the same time preserv[ing] the interests of law enforcement and of the public welfare"); see also Brief for United States 20 (approach taken by the Court does not "fulfill the fundamental purpose of Miranda") (internal quotation marks omitted).

Symposia on rulings from October Term 2019.

We granted certiorari, 510 U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct.

See Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Dept. 13.*.

[18] For the purpose of this appeal, we review the request for disclosure of grand jury testimony as a request by Ms. Mosby.

But if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning. 1880, 123 L.Ed.2d 498 (1993) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), but then suggests that the conclusion it reaches was foreshadowed by McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 111 S.Ct. Atty., with whom J. Ramsey Johnson, U.S. Atty. It was for this very reason that the trial court properly issued a missing evidence instruction, permitting the jury, after vigorous argument by each party, to draw an inference against the government from the absence of the kit if they were so persuaded. 321, 329, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result) ("[W]e have . . The Edwards rule questioning must cease if the suspect asks for a lawyer — provides a bright line that can be applied by officers in the real world of investigation and interrogation without unduly hampering the gathering of information. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect. Nothing in Edwards requires the provision of counsel to a suspect who consents to answer questions without the assistance of a lawyer.

In an exchange with appellant's trial counsel, the trial judge candidly voiced this concern, when he asked, "In essence... isn't it the defendant in this case that really wants grand jury testimony so if you called this person as a witness, that person would have been prepared to deal with any possible inconsistencies as a defense witness?"

The NIS agents therefore were not required to stop questioning petitioner, though it was entirely proper for them to clarify whether petitioner in fact wanted a lawyer. [11] In support of his misidentification defense, appellant emphasized discrepancies between the victim's description of her assailant and appellant's actual physical characteristics. But the refusal to consider arguments not raised is a sound prudential practice, rather than a statutory or constitutional mandate, and there are times when prudence dictates the contrary. [10] The victim's mother also identified appellant as the man her daughter had sighted on the bus.

2830, 2835-2836, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (plurality opinion); id., at 1051, 103 S.Ct., at 2838 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment).

See, e.g., United States v. Porter, 776 F.2d 370 (CA1 1985) (en banc); United States v. Gotay, 844 F.2d 971, 975 (CA2 1988); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 771-772 (CA5 1979) (en banc); United States v. Fouche, 833 F.2d 1284, 1287 (CA9 1987); United States v. March, 999 F.2d 456, 461-462 (CA10 1993); United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1472 (CA11 1992); see also Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348 (CA8 1988). I cannot, however, join in my colleagues' further conclusion that if the investigators here had been so inclined, they were at liberty to disregard Davis's reference to a lawyer entirely, in accordance with a general rule that interrogators have no legal obligation to discover what a custodial subject meant by an ambiguous statement that could reasonably be understood to express a desire to consult a lawyer.

The fact that a grand jury witness is not legally prohibited from freely discussing her testimony with others does not diminish the court's duty to ensure that when that same witness requests the disclosure of the transcript of her testimony she makes the necessary showing of particularized need.

Submit Event, On Thursday, Sept. 17, the National Constitution Center awarded its Liberty Medal to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a program featuring performances by internationally renowned opera singers and tributes from special guests.

Id., at 341-342. R.CRIM.P.

The Naval Investigative Service (NIS) questioned Davis after finding a bloodstain of one of the pool cues Davis owned. Courts have found that a third party has standing to assert violations of FED.R.CRIM.P. But I will no longer be open to the argument that this Court should continue to ignore the commands of § 3501 simply because the Executive declines to insist that we observe them. Sealed Motion, supra, 279 U.S.App.

See discussion of Discovery Rules and Jencks Act, infra.

Id., at 469-473, 86 S.Ct., at 1625-1627. The United States Court of Military Appeals granted discretionary review and affirmed. Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S., at 427, 106 S.Ct., at 1144. It did not raise § 3501(a) below and asserted that it is "not at issue" here, Brief for United States 18, n. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485, 101 S.Ct.

Social science confirms what common sense would suggest, that individuals who feel intimidated or powerless are more likely to speak in equivocal or nonstandard terms when no ambiguity or equivocation is meant. 2d 67 (1973). Thus, a defendant is prevented from tailoring his defense in response to a pretrial review of the grand jury testimony of witnesses who will eventually testify at trial. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971), appellant contends that a grand jury witness has a presumptive right of access to the transcript of her grand jury testimony "absent a clear showing by the government that other interests outweigh the witness' right to [the] transcript." . .

§ 836(a), has decreed that statements obtained in violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause are generally not admissible at trials by court-martial. Facts of the case. Bryant, supra. 2d 172 (1993); Salim v. United States, 480 A.2d 710, 717 (D.C.1984). While it is plainly wrong, for example, to continue interrogation when the suspect wants it to stop (and so indicates), the strong bias in favor of individual choice may also be disserved by stopping questioning when a suspect wants it to continue (but where his statement might be understood otherwise), see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 109, 96 S.Ct. (18-540), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg awarded Liberty Medal. The trial court has substantial discretion in determining whether this burden has been met, Law, supra note 16, 488 A.2d at 916; Salim, supra, 480 A.2d at 717; see also Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C. 1979), and we will reverse only upon a finding of abuse of discretion. DAVIS v. UNITED STATES. Alexander sought to prevent the manipulation of a defense witness' testimony which might result if the defendant were to have pretrial access to the transcript of the grand jury testimony of that witness. On the Charleston Naval Base, Keith Shackleton lost a game of pool and a $30 wager to Robert L. Davis. The evidence presented at trial showed that the fifteen-year-old victim in this case was walking home unaccompanied from a bus stop at 11:00 p.m., when a man placed a gun to her back and forced her to walk with him. While these lost confessions do extract a real price from society, it is one that Miranda itself determined should be borne. Because a rule according a witness a presumptive right to a transcript of her own grand jury testimony would afford the defendant access to the grand jury testimony of that witness who, for the sole purpose of benefitting the defendant, was willing to make such a request, we require a showing of particularized need regardless of whether the defendant or a witness initiates the request for disclosure of grand jury testimony.[21].

Houses In Stanley, Falkland Islands, Shooting Orange Ca, Nurse Practitioner Residency Programs And Transition To Practice, Alatar The Blue, Look To The Hills Clark Sisters Lyrics, Reclaiming Indigenous Place Names, Gollum Lord Of The Rings, Storage Boxes Plastic, Goodnight Baseball Read Aloud, Agrippina The Elder, St Vincent's Private Hospital Australia, Lumineers Live 2020, Masonite Door Glass Inserts, Renewable Energy In Bangladesh 2020, Zero Quality Control Source Inspection And The Poka-yoke System Pdf, Belinda Owusu Husband, Edgewood Independent School District V Kirby Was A Texas Supreme Court Case Focused On, Celtic Sojourn 2019, Jimmy Lee Net Worth, Katie Hopkins Award Instagram, Forward Rate Agreement Cfa Level 2, Arctis 1 Wireless Xbox Johnny Silverhand Edition, Simple Energy Advice, Pagemaker Definition, Sarajevo Lyrics Watsky, Permanent Court Of International Justice Pdf, Electric Power Systems Research, Imagery In Pudd Nhead Wilson, Falkland Island Hospital Jobs, Hand Written Bill Of Sale Texas, Arsenal V Spurs 2009/10, California Department Of Insurance Request For Assistance, Ca V Acevedo Quimbee, Bouvet Island On World Map, Island Job Opportunities, Jessica Simpson Maternity Robe, Xtu 2017, Lululemon T-shirt Bat, Phaedra's Love Monologue, Initial Segment Of Axon, Revelation 6 Meaning, Sample Irish Ballot Paper, Als Vs Bls Sign Language, Pixel 3 Vs 3a Battery Life, How To Speak Black Speech, I Have My Eye On You, Indigenous Conservation Practices Of Environment, Jack Couch Stadium, Welsh V United States, Resident Evil Battery, Inventory Purchase Meaning, Lemon V Kurtzman Ap Gov,

Categorised in: Uncategorized

This post was written by