U.S. v. Greer, 77-5369
| Decision Date | 16 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-5369,77-5369 |
| Citation | 566 F.2d 472 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Marvin GREER, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William N. Clark (court-appointed), Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
J. R. Brooks, U. S. Atty., George C. Batcheler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy, bank robbery, and interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2113(a)(d), and 2312. He was sentenced on June 9, 1977, to a total of thirty years imprisonment.
On appeal, the appellant claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession on grounds that he was not legally arrested and was not promptly taken before a magistrate. Preceding trial, the district court held a hearing on the motion. The court allowed the signed statement to go to the jury. Review of the court's action is limited to determining whether its finding was clearly erroneous. United States v. Kelly, 5 Cir. 1977, 556 F.2d 257; United States v. Vasquez, 5 Cir. 1976, 534 F.2d 1142.
The bank robbery involved in this case occurred shortly after 9:00 a. m. on March 3, 1977. Local law enforcement officials and FBI agents strongly suspected the appellant, as the modus operandi of the robbery was similar to one used by the appellant in other bank robberies. About one hour after the robbery, city policemen saw the appellant walking down the street. The policemen stopped him so he could be interviewed by the FBI. The policemen testified that although they did not arrest the appellant, he was not free to go. Furthermore, the officers testified that they did not give the appellant the Miranda warning and they did not question the appellant regarding the robbery.
The appellant was brought to the city jail where he was given the Miranda warning and was questioned at various times over the course of the afternoon by city policemen and an FBI agent. The appellant resolutely denied any involvement in the bank robbery.
At about 7:00 p. m. a city detective told appellant that a witness had identified appellant by a mug shot as the person he had seen in the automobile which had been used in the bank robbery. The detective showed appellant the picture, which had been signed by the witness, and announced that he intended to file state charges against the appellant. Upon being so informed, appellant stated that he would rather be charged under federal law, and, if so, he would make a statement. The appellant was again advised of his rights and he signed a waiver form. After making a statement, the appellant read it and signed it. Although the appellant contends that he was physically abused, the city police officers and FBI agents testified that he was not abused or threatened.
In the present case, there was no probable cause to arrest or detain appellant from 10:00 a. m. to 7:00 p. m. Our task now is to determine if the confession was a result of the illegal detention as "(t)his Court has not established a per se rule that statements made during a period of illegal detention are necessarily excluded." Moffett v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1975, 512 F.2d 496, 502. The factors this court considers are: the circumstances surrounding the arrest, whether custody was continuous, the duration of the custody, the pattern of interrogation, whether the suspect had been apprised of his rights, whether there was substantial intervening occurrences between arrest and statement, and the extent to which the arrest violated legal processes. Id. at 502-503. We have found statements admissible in the following cases:
(1) Rogers v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 535, cert. denied 379 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 265, 13 L.Ed.2d 186 ();
(2) United States v. Cox, 5 Cir. 1972, 459 F.2d 986 ();
(3) Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 118, cert. denied 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 246, 19 L.Ed.2d 273 ();
(4) Phelper v. Decker, 5 Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 232 (); and
(5) Samora v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1095 ().
This court has held statements inadmissible in the following cases:
(1) Harney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...cited therein. "Review of the court's action is limited to determining whether its finding was clearly erroneous." United States v. Greer, 566 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir.1978). Applying these principles, we have reviewed the testimony adduced both on the motion to suppress and at trial, and fin......
-
Grayson v. State
...cited therein. "Review of the court's action is limited to determining whether its finding was clearly erroneous." United States v. Greer, 566 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir.1978).'"' "Whittle v. State, 518 So.2d at 796, quoting Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d at 576." Jackson v. State, supra, at 1327......
-
Jackson v. State
...cited therein. 'Review of the court's action is limited to determining whether its finding was clearly erroneous.' United States v. Greer, 566 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir.1978)." ' " Whittle v. State, 518 So.2d at 796, quoting Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d at 576. Applying these standards for app......
-
State v. Jackson
...CHANEY v. WAINWRIGHT, 561 F.2d 1129 [5th Cir.1977, cert. denied, 443 U.S. 904 [99 S.Ct. 3095, 61 L.Ed.2d 871] (1979) ]; U.S. v. GREER, 566 F.2d 472 [5th Cir.], cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1009 [98 S.Ct. 1881, 56 L.Ed.2d 391] (1978). See U.S. v. SIKORA, 635 F.2d 1175 [6th Cir.] (1980), statements......