United States v. Priest, 26303.

Citation409 F.2d 491
Decision Date27 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 26303.,26303.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Knox PRIEST, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

John H. Stennis, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. Donald Strange, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

Having studied the record and briefs in this case, we have determined that it is appropriate for summary disposition without oral argument. Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Clerk of this Court has been directed to put the case on the summary calendar and notify the parties in writing.1

Cecil Knox Priest, a nineteen year old boy with an eighth-grade education, was convicted by a jury of theft of a government automobile in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. In this Court, he challenges the refusal of the court below to grant his motion to suppress a confession which the Government proposed to put in evidence through the testimony of F. B. I. Agent Jack Wilson. The incriminating statement was elicited by the agent during custodial interrogation at a hospital in Vicksburg, Mississippi where appellant was recovering from injuries. The agent went to appellant's hospital room on the morning of December 27, 1967 and gave him the Bureau's standard form containing the Miranda warning. It is conceded by everyone concerned that at this point Priest said he did not want to sign the form until he had consulted with an attorney. This obvious request for an attorney was ignored, the interrogation proceeded, and in due course a confession was obtained.

The question argued on the motion to suppress and presented by the briefs in the Court is whether the confession was inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974. Two very clear passages from the decision itself settle the issue:

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. (Emphasis added)

384 U.S. at 444-445, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.

Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • State v. Acquin
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1982
    ...invoked unless the accused initiates the renewed contact. See, e.g., United States v. Massey, 550 F.2d 300 ([5th Cir.] 1977); United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 ([5th Cir.] 1969). Waiver is possible, however, when the request for counsel is equivocal. Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513 ([5th ......
  • Com. v. Brant
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 31, 1979
    ...v. Mearns, 443 F.Supp. 1244, 1253 (D.Del.1978). Contrast United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir. 1970); United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1969). The rule based upon the Fifth Amendment that, if a suspect indicates in any manner at any time prior to or during q......
  • U.S. v. Porter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 6, 1984
    ...of waiver but must be presumed a product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. See, United States v. Downing, supra; United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir.1969). Appellant's incriminatory statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and should not have been admi......
  • Solem v. Stumes
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1984
    ...of questioning unless initiated by the suspect. E.g., United States v. Womack, 542 F.2d 1047, 1050-1051 (CA9 1976); United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491, 493 (CA5 1969). On the other hand, a number of courts allowed renewed interrogations after a request for counsel. E.g., Blasingame v. Es......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT