U.S. v. Ali, No. 1720

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore KEARSE, ALTIMARI and PARKER; PARKER
Citation86 F.3d 275
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Farid ALI, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 94-1600.
Docket NumberD,No. 1720
Decision Date22 May 1996

Page 275

86 F.3d 275
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Farid ALI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1720, Docket 94-1600.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.
Decided May 22, 1996.

Page 276

Before KEARSE, ALTIMARI and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Wiles, Nos. 94-1592
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 10, 1996
    ...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......
  • United States v. Coplan, 10-583-cr(L)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 29, 2012
    ...of § 1001(a)(2). Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280. 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), we held for the first time that materiality is a statutory element of all charges under § 1001. Ali, 68 F.3d at 1474-75; see Unit......
  • USA v. Mandanici, Docket No. 99-2059
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 1, 1999
    ...whether 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......
  • Coleman v. U.S., Docket No. 01-2263.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 7, 2003
    ...issue in perjury prosecutions, which was required by Gaudin and United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1474-75 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.1996), is a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on habeas Coleman argues to the contrary that Apprendi announced a substanti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • U.S. v. Wiles, Nos. 94-1592
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 10, 1996
    ...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......
  • United States v. Coplan, 10-583-cr(L)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 29, 2012
    ...of § 1001(a)(2). Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280. 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), we held for the first time that materiality is a statutory element of all charges under § 1001. Ali, 68 F.3d at 1474-75; see Unit......
  • USA v. Mandanici, Docket No. 99-2059
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 1, 1999
    ...whether 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......
  • Coleman v. U.S., Docket No. 01-2263.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 7, 2003
    ...issue in perjury prosecutions, which was required by Gaudin and United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1474-75 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.1996), is a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on habeas Coleman argues to the contrary that Apprendi announced a substanti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT