U.S. v. Galindo-Gallegos, GALINDO-GALLEGOS
| Decision Date | 12 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | GALINDO-GALLEGOS,No. 99-50585,99-50585 |
| Citation | 255 F.3d 1154 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIAN, aka Jose Reyes-Olague, aka Aurelio Garcia-Chairez, aka Jose Olague Reyes, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
NOTE: SEE OPINION AT 244 F.3d 728.
Debra A. DiIorio, DiIorio & Hall, San Diego, California, for the appellant.
Kevin J. Kelly, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, California, for the appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CR-98-02021-IEG
Before: Pamela Ann Rymer, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
The slip opinion filed March 27, 2001 and amended April 25, 2001, is amended as follows:
At slip opinion 5225, lines 4-6 of the text, delete the sentence, "Whether a person is `in custody' for purposes of Miranda is essentially a question of fact reviewed for clear error." Replace with: Whether a person is "in custody" for purposes of Miranda is a mixed question of law and fact warranting de novo review. Before Thompson v. Keohane, we reviewed whether a suspect was "in custody" for purposes of Miranda as a question of fact, for clear error, under People of the Territory of Guam v. Palomo. We have, since Thompson, reviewed de novo, as Thompson requires, without mentioning Palomo. A panel may overrule the decision of a prior panel when "an intervening Supreme Court decision undermines an existing precedent of the Ninth Circuit, and both cases are closely on point." To avoid future confusion, we expressly recognize that Palomo's clear error standard of review has been overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. JAVIER M.
...interrogation and entitled to the constitutional protections of Miranda is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 255 F.3d 1154, 1154 (9th Cir.2001). "[W]e review mixed questions of law and fact de novo, particularly when they involve constitutional rights." St......
-
In re Arambula-Bravo
... ... and noting that "the Supreme Court has already told us ... what Congress meant by 'under section [239(a)]'" ... (quoting section 240A(d)(1)(A) ... See United States v. Galindo-Gallegos , 244 F.3d 728, ... 734 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 255 F.3d 1154 (9th ... Cir ... ...
- United States v. Gonzalez-Corn
-
U.S. v. Kim
...by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 255 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.2001), modifying 244 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.). Now, "[w]hether a person is `in custody' for purposes of Miranda is a mixed question o......