787 F.2d 593 (6th Cir. 1986), 85-5308, U.S. v. Brinson

Docket Nº:85-5308
Citation:787 F.2d 593
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINDA JOYCE BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:March 04, 1986
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 593

787 F.2d 593 (6th Cir. 1986)



LINDA JOYCE BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85-5308

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

March 4, 1986

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)



On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

BEFORE: KEITH and GUY, Circuit Judges and TAYLOR. [*]


Plaintiff, Linda Joyce Brinson, appeals from a March 6, 1985 verdict finding her guilty of 18 U.S.C. 113(f) and 18 U.S.C. 1112(a) for her willfully killing an infant in a heat of passion upon land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the Fort Campbell, Kentucky, military reservation. Appellant, on January 30, 1985, filed a motion to suppress a confession which was given during the investigation. On March 4, 1985, a suppression hearing was held, and appellant's motion was denied. Appellant appeals the conviction on the grounds she was not properly given Miranda warnings prior to her confession. We disagree, and accordingly affirm.

On October 30, 1984, Carlos Shealy, a fourteen month-old child, died of a subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage in the brain. The victim was being cared for by the appellant at her Fort Campbell residence.

On December 6, 1984 agents Russel Strand and Arthur Chancellor from the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) spoke to appellant's husband, Sergeant Brinson, at his place of employment. They asked if he would accompany them to the CID office to answer some questions. Subsequently, both agents went with Sergeant Brinson to his home and talked with appellant. When asked if she would accompany them to the CID office, she agreed.

No questions were asked of appellant on the way to the office. Upon arrival at the office at 11:08 a.m., appellant was read her Miranda rights by Agent Strand, and signed a waiver. A general discussion ensued in which appellant was explained the reason for the questioning, and why she was suspected. Following the discussion or interview, appellant made a written statement denying culpability in the infant's death, which was signed at 3:50 p.m. During the interview, appellant was given the...

To continue reading