Klamert v. Cupp
| Decision Date | 28 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26049.,26049. |
| Citation | 437 F.2d 1153 |
| Parties | Emil KLAMERT, Appellant, v. Hoyt CUPP, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ross R. Runkel, argued, Salem, Or., for appellant.
James A. Sanderson, argued, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, KOELSCH and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Emil Klamert, a prisoner of the State of Oregon, appeals from a district court order, entered after an evidentiary hearing, denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Oregon, Oregon v. Klamert, 253 Ore. 485, 455 P.2d 607 (1969).
The question presented is whether, either as a matter of law or fact, Klamert's oral confession to a police officer, while under arrest and enroute from one police station to another in a police car, was constitutionally inadmissible because of alleged prior custodial police interrogations which drew no immediate answers, which interrogation was not accompanied by adequate Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 1966) warnings.
Klamert was arrested about 1:00 p. m., August 9, 1967, as a result of the shooting of a Portland, Oregon, police officer, Floyd T. Embree. The testimony is in conflict as to whether Klamert was questioned at his home, where the shooting occurred and the arrest was made. In any event Klamert made no statement to the police at his home after the arrest.1 Shortly after his arrest Klamert was placed in a police car and driven to Portland's East Precinct station. At this time he was given an inadequate Miranda warning, but was not questioned during this drive and made no statement.
The testimony is again in conflict as to whether Klamert was questioned at East Precinct station. He made no statement there. He was next placed in a police car and driven to Portland's Central Precinct station. Klamert was not questioned during this ride. However, while en route to Central Precinct station, Klamert orally confessed to police officer Daggett, who was driving, that he shot Officer Embree. This was no more than two hours after his arrest at 1:00 p. m., and therefore less than two hours after any police questioning.
Klamert was intoxicated during this two-hour period, having drunk wine, beer and bourbon for several hours before the shooting. At 4:35 p. m., after the confession had been made, his blood contained .21 percent alcohol. The following morning, he was shaking and, collapsing into unconsciousness, was taken to a hospital. Klamert, however, was able to walk normally and speak coherently during the two-hour period in question. There was medical evidence to indicate that his fainting spell the next morning was not due to drunkenness or delirium tremens. At his trial Klamert testified that he well recalled the events of August 9th. This was in conflict with his evidence at the habeas hearing that alcohol so far possessed him that he did not know what he was doing.
Under Miranda, no statements obtained as the result of custodial police interrogation of a defendant may be used against him at trial until the prosecution proves the sufficiency of the warnings of certain constitutional rights and of the waiver of those rights. It is conceded by the state that the Miranda warnings given Klamert were inadequate and in such a situation there can be no valid waiver of the Miranda rights. Under Miranda, however, statements volunteered by a defendant, even though in custody, free from interrogation or other coercion, are still admissible regardless of the absence of warnings of rights. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602.
The habeas court found that Klamert's confession was volunteered in this Miranda sense, and, therefore, that its admission did not trespass upon his constitutional rights notwithstanding the inadequacy of the Miranda wa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McKee
...response to interrogation are admissible, however, even when a suspect is in custody and after he invokes his rights. Klamert v. Cupp , 437 F.2d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir.1970) (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). Once a suspect unambiguously requests counsel, Davis v. United State......
-
Young v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
...L.Ed.2d 122 and 409 U.S. 859, 93 S. Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972); United States v. Barnes, 449 F.2d 1294 (9 Cir. 1971); Klamert v. Cupp, 437 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1970). VOLUNTARINESS OF Petitioner further attacks the voluntariness of his written confession. The record shows that at the time ......
-
Gregg v. Wyrick, Civ. A. No. 73CV432-W-3-R.
...voluntary spontaneous remarks, which were neither coerced nor prompted by the inquiry of law enforcement officials. Klamert v. Cupp, 437 F.2d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir. 1970); Ervimg v. Sigler, 327 F.Supp. 778 (D. Neb.1971), affirmed, 453 F.2d 843 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S......
-
State v. Amorin
...statements made by a defendant Before any police questioning and in the absence of any coercion are admissible. Klamert v. Cupp, 437 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Trosper, 450 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1971); Phillips v. Attorney General of State of California, 594 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir......