Fendley v. United States

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
CitationFendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967)
Decision Date02 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 24554.,24554.
PartiesWilliam C. FENDLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

William J. Hamilton, Jr., First Asst. U. S. Atty., Samuel S. Forman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman U. S. Atty., Middle Dist. of Florida, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and HEEBE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant was in state custody at the time of his interrogation by the FBI. The interrogation was an important part of the federal criminal proceedings which had obviously then focused on the defendant. As was the case in Miranda this was an interrogation "in a police-dominated atmosphere." Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 445, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). At a hearing conducted by the district judge on the admissibility of a statement by the defendant taken at that interrogation, the FBI agent testified that the defendant was advised that he "had the right to remain silent, that he didn't have to make any statement, that if he did make any statement, it could be used against him in a court of law." Although the agent stated that he also advised the defendant that "he had the right to consult an attorney or anyone else before making a statement," and that "if he did not have any money to obtain an attorney that the Judge, the Court, would appoint one for him when he went to court," the defendant was not advised, as Miranda requires, of his right to have court-appointed counsel present during the interrogation. Although the interrogation was made and the defendant's statement taken prior to the Miranda decision, the trial took place subsequent to Miranda and the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
32 cases
  • Lathers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 23, 1968
    ... ... In Windsor the indigent defendant was advised that he could retain an attorney immediately and that an attorney would be appointed by the court in the event he was arrested. The confession which followed that warning was excluded by this court. Similarly, in Fendley v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 384 F.2d 923, a confession was excluded where the defendant was warned that "he had the right to consult an attorney or anyone else before making a statement," and that "if he did not have any money to obtain an attorney that the Judge, the Court, would appoint one ... ...
  • State v. Maluia
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1975
    ... ... United States v. Noa, 443 F.2d 144, 146 (9th Cir. 1971). In this context, the question: 'Do you want an ...         Defendant cites Fendley v United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967), and Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524 (5th Cir ... ...
  • U.S. v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 18, 1992
    ... Page 496 ... 954 F.2d 496 ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, ... Anthony CALDWELL, Appellant ... No. 90-2857 ... United ... United States, 389 F.2d 530, 533 (5th Cir.1968) (same); Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.1967) (per curiam) (warnings held to be insufficient since ... ...
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1975
    ... ... He states that they drove over to the Salt & Pepper Tavern, which is located at 2925 West Holton Street, City ... the mandate of Miranda in numerous federal and state appellate courts, 8 but not in the United States Supreme Court. 9 ...         In United States v. Lacy 10 the Fifth Federal ... 1968); Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10 Cir. 1968); Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5 Cir. 1967); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 219 So.2d 377 (1969); ... ...
  • Get Started for Free