U.S. v. Lewis, 75--1469
| Citation | 528 F.2d 312 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1469,75--1469 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roosevelt LEWIS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Michael S. Alonge, Fairfax, Va. (court-appointed), for appellant.
Elsie M. Powell, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee.
Before RUSSELL, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Roosevelt Lewis has appealed from his conviction of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Following a hearing outside the jury's presence to determine the voluntariness of Lewis' confession, the trial judge admitted the confession into evidence. The judge also instructed the jury that they should determine whether the confession was voluntary before considering it as evidence. The jury found Lewis guilty as charged, and the judge denied a motion for a new trial.
The sole issue on this appeal concerns the voluntariness of Lewis' confession. The trial court disposed of one group of Lewis' contentions by finding that the confession was not induced by promises or hope of reward. Although an appellate court must determine independently the ultimate issue of voluntariness, Thomas v. State of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1971) 447 F.2d 1320, 1322, the findings of the district court as to the facts surrounding the confession are to be accepted unless clearly erroneous, Wright v. State of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 483 F.2d 405, cert. denied, 415 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1452, 39 L.Ed.2d 494 (1974). In view of the support in the record, the district court's finding that no improper promises were made was not clearly erroneous.
The remainder of Lewis' argument on appeal resolves into a contention that his confession was coerced by the totality of the circumstances. He contends that the following circumstances detracted from the voluntariness of his confession: (1) His interrogation extended intermittently throughout the night following his arrest at approximately midnight. (2) The policeman to whom he first made incriminating admissions had attempted to ingratiate himself with the defendant by offering Lewis friendly advice and claiming to be from the same part of Florida as Lewis. (3) Another policeman indicated to Lewis that he faced a long night of questioning if he did not confess. (4) Lewis had a reduced capacity generally to deal with police pressures because he was emotionally unstable, because he had a limited education, and because he had only limited experience in dealing with police since his only prior contact had been one arrest several years previously. (5) Lewis' resistance to police pressure was particularly low at the time of his confession because he had been drinking before the arrest and he became tired during the several hours of questioning that followed his arrest.
The trial court made no specific finding as to the totality of the circumstances, although some evidence of those circumstances was presented at the hearing on the voluntariness of the confession. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Farley
...review of the evidence clearly supports voluntariness. See United States v. Carter, 569 F.2d 801 (4th Cir.1977); United States v. Lewis, 528 F.2d 312 (4th Cir.1975). The defendant first contends that he invoked his right under Miranda to remain silent and the police officers did not honor t......
-
State v. Honaker
...relation to official or police involvement are not significant in deciding the voluntariness question. [193 W.Va. 57] States v. Lewis, 528 F.2d 312 (4th Cir.1975). Because the dispositive issue is one of law and is not necessarily dependent upon factual development, we find that we are able......
-
Boggs v. Bair
...the voluntariness issue are entitled to deference under § 2254(d). U.S. v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir.1987); U.S. v. Lewis, 528 F.2d 312, 313 (4th Cir.1975). The Court may therefore review the voluntariness issue but must accept the state courts' finding that Boggs was not intox......
-
U.S. v. Shears, 85-5012
...assigned to him, that the confession should be suppressed. His decision should be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. Lewis, 528 F.2d 312 (4th Cir.1975). A district judge must be allowed considerable scope in which to make the decisions which he reaches on what are quintes......