Mathis v. United States, No. 23827.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PHILLIPS, THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit |
| Citation | 376 F.2d 595 |
| Parties | Robert T. MATHIS, Sr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23827. |
376 F.2d 595 (1967)
Robert T. MATHIS, Sr., Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 23827.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 28, 1967.
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1967.
Max Lurie, Nicholas J. Capuano, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
James W. Matthews, Michael J. Osman, Asst. U. S. Attys., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS,* THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment charging him with having knowingly filed false claims for income tax refunds in 1960 and 1961 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287.
On October 30, 1964, an Internal Revenue agent interviewed appellant, who was at that time incarcerated in the Florida State Penitentiary, with the object of establishing the correctness of a 1960 tax return bearing appellant's signature. At that interview appellant identified the tax return and the signature thereon as his. He also signed a Form 8721 extending the limitation period on his 1960 return, thereby giving the Government additional time to investigate the return and determine the proper tax liability.2
Again, on March 2, 1965, a second interview was conducted with appellant at which time he identified a 1961 tax return bearing his signature and signed another Form 872 extending the limitation period. On March 10, 1965, the interviewing agent, who was not a criminal investigator, referred appellant's case to the Internal Revenue Intelligence Division as involving definite indications of fraud. On June 9, 1965, an agent of the Intelligence Division, accompanied by the original interviewing agent, sought to interview appellant in conjunction with the then pending criminal investigation. At the beginning of that interview, appellant was advised of his constitutional rights whereupon he refused to cooperate further. Over appellant's objections at the trial, the Government was permitted to introduce the documents executed by appellant during the two initial interviews together with testimony that appellant had on those two occasions admitted having filed the 1960 and 1961 tax returns bearing his signature.
On this appeal, appellant relies solely upon Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, in urging that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony and documents obtained at the two interviews because he was not on either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jaskiewicz, Crim. No. 22706.
...Morgan v. United States, 377 F.2d 507 (1 Cir. 1967); Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F.2d 735 (1 Cir. 1967); Mathis v. United States, 376 F.2d 595 (5 Cir. 1967); United States v. Maius, 378 F.2d 716 (6 Cir. 1967); Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F.2d 898 (9 Cir. 1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 101......
-
State v. Halverson, Appeal No. 2018AP858-CR
...at the time of the interview, and the prisoner was incarcerated for an ‘unconnected offense.’ " Id. (citing Mathis v. United States , 376 F.2d 595, 597 (5th Cir. 1967) ).¶32 Howes observed that "the holding in Mathis is simply that a prisoner who otherwise meets the requirements for Miranda......
-
Agius v. United States, No. 25228.
...an investigation which had focused on an accused." 5 Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), reversing 376 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 6 Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969). 7 389 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1968). 8 We distinguished the earl......
-
United States v. Prudden, No. 28140.
...thus were beyond the protection of the Fifth Amendment without regard to the presence or absence of compulsion. Mathis v. United States, 376 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 9 Cf. United States v. Marlow, 423 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1970), where a routine request for a driver's license made without Miranda w......
-
United States v. Jaskiewicz, Crim. No. 22706.
...Morgan v. United States, 377 F.2d 507 (1 Cir. 1967); Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F.2d 735 (1 Cir. 1967); Mathis v. United States, 376 F.2d 595 (5 Cir. 1967); United States v. Maius, 378 F.2d 716 (6 Cir. 1967); Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F.2d 898 (9 Cir. 1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 101......
-
State v. Halverson, Appeal No. 2018AP858-CR
...at the time of the interview, and the prisoner was incarcerated for an ‘unconnected offense.’ " Id. (citing Mathis v. United States , 376 F.2d 595, 597 (5th Cir. 1967) ).¶32 Howes observed that "the holding in Mathis is simply that a prisoner who otherwise meets the requirements for Miranda......
-
Agius v. United States, No. 25228.
...an investigation which had focused on an accused." 5 Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), reversing 376 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 6 Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969). 7 389 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1968). 8 We distinguished the earl......
-
United States v. Prudden, No. 28140.
...thus were beyond the protection of the Fifth Amendment without regard to the presence or absence of compulsion. Mathis v. United States, 376 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 9 Cf. United States v. Marlow, 423 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1970), where a routine request for a driver's license made without Miranda w......