U.S. v. Ali
| Decision Date | 22 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1720,1720 |
| Citation | 86 F.3d 275 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Farid ALI, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 94-1600. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Before KEARSE, ALTIMARI and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
This panel first issued an opinion in this matter on October 23, 1995. The government petitioned for rehearing and we amended the opinion, prior to publication, upon consideration of that petition. United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468 (2d Cir.1995). Ali has petitioned for rehearing, as is his right pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The central issue in this case is whether Ali was in custody such that Miranda warnings were required when he was interrogated by law enforcement officials. We previously remanded for reconsideration of that issue. 68 F.3d at 1473. Statements Ali made during this interrogation were used against him at trial.
In his petition for rehearing, Ali argues that the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Thompson v. Keohane, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), requires this court to review the district court's custody determination de novo and that remand for reconsideration was thus unnecessary. At our request, the government filed a response to Ali's petition. As explained briefly below, we agree with Ali that remand is unnecessary under the circumstances of this case--where there is an abundance of undisputed facts regarding the circumstances surrounding Ali's interrogation--and in light of Thompson 's direction that we review custody determinations independently, see --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 465. We now order that Ali's conviction be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
We have already articulated the test for determining whether a suspect is in custody and is thus entitled to Miranda warnings. A person is in custody for purposes of Miranda if "a reasonable person in [the suspect's] shoes would [not] have felt free to leave under the circumstances." 68 F.3d at 1473. "An accused is in 'custody' when, in the absence of an actual arrest, law enforcement officials act or speak in a manner that conveys the message that they would not permit the accused to leave." Id. at 1472 (citation omitted). See also Thompson, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 466.
The facts of this case are discussed in greater detail in our previous published opinion and we incorporate that portion of the previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USA v. Mandanici
...materiality is an element under 1001,8 but in United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468 (2d Cir. 1995), amended on denial of reh'g, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 1996), decided four months after Gaudin, we overruled our precedents and held that materiality is an element of any and all charges under 1001. S......
-
U.S. v. Allah, s. 1583
...(construing willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 922(e) in accordance with Collins 's interpretation), modified on other grounds, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.1996). Collins remains the law of the Circuit, see generally United States v. Ianniello, 808 F.2d 184, 190 (2d Cir.1986) ("This Court is bound by a ......
-
U.S. v. Beck
...case are undisputed, we need not remand for further findings and may rule based on the record currently before us. See United States v. Ali, 86 F.3d 275, 276 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that remand is unnecessary where "there is an abundance of undisputed facts" regarding the circumstances surro......
-
U.S. v. Wiles
...overruled by United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1474-75 (2d Cir.1995) (materiality is an element of any § 1001 offense), on reh'g, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.1996). The dissent reasoned that the court's holding made the materiality element of § 78ff superfluous. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d at 1305 (Winte......