U.S. v. Brinson

Decision Date04 March 1986
Citation787 F.2d 593
PartiesUnpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINDA JOYCE BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 85-5308
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

AFFIRMED

W.D.Ky.

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

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

PER CURIAM:

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 opportunity to use to telephone, leave the room, use the restroom and eat.

Subsequently, discrepancies in the statement were brought to appellant's attention. Appellant was interviewed again, and a second statement was given and signed by appellant at 7:55 p.m. This second statement incriminated appellant.

Appellant's argument for reversal is two-fold. First, appellant alleges that her second incriminating statement was taken without a reissuance of her Miranda rights. Second, appellant argues that even if she was adequately warned of her rights, that the statement was a result of coercion and duress.

Since appellant had been advised of her constitutional rights prior to any questioning, and she in fact waived those rights, the issue before this Court is whether a prior waiver of constitutional rights remains effectual after a statement is obtained precipitating a second interview which results in a confession. This issue has been answered in the affirmative by a number of circuit courts. Miller v. United States, 396 F.2d 342 (8th Cir., 1968) held that a confession is not necessarily invalid because a Miranda warning is not repeated in full each time the investigation process is resumed after an interruption. A recent circuit case has reaffirmed Miller. In Jarrell v. Balkem, 735 F.2d 1242 (11th Cir., 1984), the court held that a confession, which was given four hours after Miranda warnings, was not inadmissable because of failure to reissue the warnings upon defendant's arrest. Although the interviewing time span in the present case was approximately nine hours, rather than four, such difference is not determinative. The key question is did defendant knowingly and intentionally waive her legal rights? We find the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding a knowing and intentional waiver.

Appellant contends that even if she was adequately given Miranda rights, that the statement should nonetheless be suppressed because it was involuntarily obtained by mental coercion. A determination of voluntariness is premised on the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). The Fifth Circuit has succinctly stated the test for 'voluntary' confessions:

'[I]n order to find [the defendant's] confession voluntary, we must conclude that he made an independent and informed choice of his own free will not being overborne by the pressures and circumstances swirling around him.'

Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 829, 937 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc) cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981).

The circumstances surrounding appellant's confession indicate that it was entirely voluntary. Appellant was able to leave the room, use the telephone, eat lunch, and speak to her husband, who was in an adjoning room. Appellant was never handcuffed or arrested prior to her confession. Agent Chancellor, who was present with Agent Strand during both interviews, testified that ap...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Purefoy v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • July 13, 2022
    ... ... he could get into serious trouble for providing false ... information); United States v. Brinson, 787 F.2d 593 (Table), ... 1986 WL 16715, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 1986) (per curiam) ... (“[E]ncouraging [suspect] to tell the truth is ... ...
  • Purefoy v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • July 13, 2022
    ... ... he could get into serious trouble for providing false ... information); United States v. Brinson, 787 F.2d 593 (Table), ... 1986 WL 16715, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 1986) (per curiam) ... (“[E]ncouraging [suspect] to tell the truth is ... ...
  • Michael v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • August 12, 2019
    ... ... children in their vagina areas, we know that. But you sitting ... here and lying to us and not admitting to it is not helping ... you any. All it's doing is hurting you and we know what ... happened ... You're not going to ... information and that his story was unbelievable); United ... States v. Brinson , 787 F.2d 593 (Table), 1986 WL 16715, ... at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 1986) (per curiam) ... (“[E]ncouraging suspect to tell the truth is ... ...

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