Camacho v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21736.,21736. |
| Citation | 392 F.2d 575 |
| Parties | Robert CAMACHO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David C. Schutter (argued), John J. Flynn, Charles D. Roush, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
Lawrence Turoff (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward E. Davis, U. S. Atty., John L. Augustine, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and BOLDT, District Judge.
In the argument on appeal, counsel agreed that other than the citation of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, there is nothing in the record before this court showing either the facts found or the legal basis for the suppression ruling in the order of the district court dated September 27, 1966.
In order to properly determine questions presented on this appeal, the record on appeal should be supplemented by a statement of the specific facts found by the district court and the particular concept of Miranda applied to the facts found in the suppression ruling referred to.
The cause is remanded for the district court to make and file as part of the record on appeal a statement of the specific facts found upon the evidence and record presented in the suppression hearing and the particular principles of law applied thereto in the suppression ruling. The statement of the district court should include findings: whether warnings of appellant's constitutional rights were given to him, and, if so, the time, maker and content of each such warning; all statements of and to appellant considered pertinent to the suppression ruling; whether appellant requested counsel and, if so, the time and content of each such request and to whom it was made. The fact findings should be stated in the sequence and context in which they occurred.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Talkington
...464 U.S. 899, 104 S.Ct. 255, 78 L.Ed.2d 241 (1983); United States v. Moore, 529 F.2d 355, 358 (D.C. Cir.1976); Camacho v. United States, 392 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir.1968); Von Der Heydt v. Rogers, 251 F.2d 17, 17-18 (D.C. Cir.1958). See generally United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 865 (7t......
-
U.S. v. Williams, 91-3071
...34 (D.C.Cir.1980), in part quoting 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2575, at 694 (1971); Camacho v. United States, 392 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir.1968); Von Der Heydt v. Rogers, 251 F.2d 17 (D.C.Cir.1958). The record is remanded for the factual findings required by Rule......
-
State v. Monteer
...rights. Such findings are invariably helpful on appellate review. Their omission may compel reversal or remand. E.g., Camacho v. United States, 392 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Jackson v. Denno, supra, 378 U.S. at 378 n. 8, 390--391, 84 S.Ct. 1774; Javor v. United States, 403 F.2d 507......
-
United States v. Read
...Such findings are invariably helpful on appellate review. Their ommission may compel reversal or remand. E. g., Camacho v. United States, 392 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Jackson v. Denno, supra, 378 U.S. at 378 n. 8, 390-391, 84 S.Ct. 1774; Javor v. United States, 403 F.2d 507, 509-5......