Sullins v. United States, No. 9662-9664.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | WOODBURY, LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit |
| Citation | 389 F.2d 985 |
| Parties | Howard Douglas SULLINS, James Floyd Williams, Audrey Louise Gillingham, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 9662-9664. |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1968 |
389 F.2d 985 (1968)
Howard Douglas SULLINS, James Floyd Williams, Audrey Louise Gillingham, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 9662-9664.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
February 26, 1968.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1968.
James Nelson, Wichita, Kan., for appellants.
Guy L. Goodwin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, with him on brief), for appellee.
Before WOODBURY,* LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
WOODBURY, Senior Circuit Judge.
These three appellants and one Linda Hughes, otherwise known as Linda Sullins, who did not appeal, were indicted, tried by jury, convicted and sentenced on three counts: two charging the passing of counterfeit $20.00 Federal Reserve notes in Kansas in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 472 and § 2 and the third charging conspiracy to pass counterfeit notes in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. The appellants complain of violations of their federal constitutional rights.
The following facts may be taken as established.
At some time between quarter and half past six o'clock on the evening of March 15, 1967, the appellant Williams obtained change for a counterfeit $20.00 Federal Reserve note at a filling station in Lakin, Kansas. The filling station attendant with the aid of a friend who happened to come in obtained a description of the automobile in which Williams was riding by make, type, color and license number and also the direction in which the car was traveling. The attendant then notified the local sheriff. Acting on this
While they were talking the sheriff drove up and he gave all four the Miranda warnings. The entire party then returned to the sheriff's office in Lakin where they were joined by the county attorney who once more gave the Miranda warnings to all four. The four were held in jail overnight. About mid-afternoon the next day, March 16th, two United States Secret Service agents arrived by automobile from Kansas City, Missouri. They gave the Miranda warnings to all four and interrogated them. Later at about quarter before six Sullins signed a standard form of notice and waiver of constitutional rights submitted to him by one of the agents but made no statement. We reproduce the notice and waiver in the margin.1
Early in the evening of March 16th the four were taken to Garden City, the location of the nearest United States Commissioner, in two automobiles, the women with local officers in one car, the men with the federal officers in another. Between 8 and 8:30 o'clock that evening the four were taken before the United States Commissioner. He gave them the prescribed notice of their constitutional rights and fixed bail which they were unable to make. They were retained overnight in jail in Garden City.
The following morning, March 17th, the Secret Service Agents talked with the four again. At that time Sullins
At the trial counsel for the appellants moved to suppress any evidence of inculpatory statements made by the appellants and the court, following the teaching of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), held a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of the evidence. The appellants and Hughes took the stand. They admitted that they had repeatedly been given the Miranda warnings but asserted that they asked for counsel immediately upon their arrival at the sheriff's office at Lakin and on several subsequent occasions. But they said that their requests for counsel had been ignored. The officers, both local and federal, admitted that they had interrogated the appellants and Hughes at Lakin and Garden City but denied that any one of them had at any time asked to have counsel present at their interrogation. The officers did testify, however, that at no time had any one of the four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. United States, No. 25381.
...v. United States, supra. We do not conjecture abuses of discretion." (Emphasis added.) See also Sullins v. United States, 10 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 985, 989. See generally 8 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 14.04 4, p. 14-30 (2d ed. 1968). Thus, appellants' bare assertion that the joint trial depriv......
-
People v. Johnson, Cr. 12804
...other jurisdictions have held that compliance with Miranda requires express words of waiver. (Sullins v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 389 F.2d 985, 988 (defendant must specifically waive right to counsel); but see, Bond v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 162, 165 (citing dissent i......
-
State v. Grisby, Nos. 45750-6
...too, should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1968); Killough v. United States, 315 F.2d 241 (D.C. Cir. Both Frazier and Grisby moved for separate trials before the trial's inc......
-
State v. Adams, No. 39402
...v. State, 243 Ark. 62, 418 S.W.2d 793 (1967); State v. La-Fernier, 37 Wis.2d 365, 155 N.W.2d 93 (1967). But see Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1968), where some affirmative form of waiver was apparently required. The Fourth Circuit, when faced with the contention that an ......
-
People v. Johnson, Cr. 12804
...other jurisdictions have held that compliance with Miranda requires express words of waiver. (Sullins v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 389 F.2d 985, 988 (defendant must specifically waive right to counsel); but see, Bond v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 397 F.2d 162, 165 (citing dissent i......
-
State v. Grisby, Nos. 45750-6
...too, should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1968); Killough v. United States, 315 F.2d 241 (D.C. Cir. Both Frazier and Grisby moved for separate trials before the trial's inc......
-
State v. Adams, No. 39402
...v. State, 243 Ark. 62, 418 S.W.2d 793 (1967); State v. La-Fernier, 37 Wis.2d 365, 155 N.W.2d 93 (1967). But see Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1968), where some affirmative form of waiver was apparently required. The Fourth Circuit, when faced with the contention that an ......
-
Bullard v. State, 51025
...v. David, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 511 F.2d 355; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Sullins v. U. S., 10 Cir., 389 F.2d 985. The recent decision of U. S. v. Lee, 6 Cir., 539 F.2d 606 (1976) specifically answers the theory of some implied, but actually imaginary, w......