U.S. v. Dockery, 83-1559

Decision Date29 September 1983
Docket NumberNo. 83-1559,83-1559
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Diane DOCKERY, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Lessenberry & Carpenter by Jack L. Lessenberry, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

George W. Proctor, U.S. Atty., Robert J. Govar, Asst. U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Diane Dockery, an employee of a federally insured bank, appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of seventeen counts of embezzling bank funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 656. The district court sentenced her to concurrent terms of imprisonment of a year and a day on Counts I and II and suspended imposition of sentence on the remaining counts, instead placing her on probation for three years following her imprisonment and requiring her to make restitution to her employer in the amount of $1,300.00. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.

For reversal appellant argues that the district court erroneously denied her pretrial motion to suppress a written confession she had given during an allegedly custodial interview without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Appellant argues that the admission into evidence of this confession at her trial violated her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

On October 8, 1982, FBI Special Agents Herb Davis and Ray McElhaney interviewed appellant concerning thefts of funds from her employer, the Union National Bank of Little Rock, Arkansas. Appellant denied any knowledge of such thefts. On November 3, 1982, one of appellant's fellow employees gave a signed statement claiming that both he and appellant had embezzled funds from the bank.

The following day, November 4, 1982, Special Agents Davis and McElhaney caused a bank official to summon appellant for questioning to a small, vacant office in the bank building where appellant was working. When she arrived, Agent Davis told her that she did not have to answer any questions, she was not under arrest nor was she going to be arrested, and that she was free to leave at any time. No Miranda warnings were given. During the interview, which lasted only sixteen minutes, the FBI agents told appellant that they believed she was involved in the theft of bank funds and they had incriminating fingerprint evidence against her. In fact, the only fingerprints the agents had were those of appellant retrieved from the bank's personnel records. Appellant steadfastly denied any involvement in the thefts and the interview terminated. The agents then left, but asked appellant to wait in the reception area outside the interview room in case any bank officials wanted to question her. Appellant complied.

A few minutes later, appellant asked a bank official to find the two FBI agents because she wanted to talk to them again. The FBI agents returned and again repeated their warnings that appellant did not have to talk to them and was free to leave whenever she desired. When appellant began once again to deny her involvement in the thefts of bank funds, Agent Davis told her that he was busy and was not interested in hearing her repeat what she had already said. He then asked, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Conner v. Reinhard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 19 Mayo 1988
    ... ... the exact fact pattern at bar, case law in a closely analogous area is essential to permit us to conclude that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged ... ...
  • Green v. Illinois Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 5 Marzo 1985
  • U.S. v. Dockery, 83-1559
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 12 Junio 1984
    ...requiring her to make restitution to her employer in the amount of $1,300. On appeal, a panel of this Court reversed. United States v. Dockery, 718 F.2d 850 (8th Cir.1983). The government's petition for rehearing en banc was then granted, the opinion of the panel was therefore vacated by op......

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