U.S. v. Poole
| Decision Date | 17 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5195,84-5195 |
| Citation | 806 F.2d 853 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Robert James POOLE, Respondent/Appellant. CA |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Duane J. Deskins, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff/appellee.
Brad Brian, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent/appellant.
Prior Report: 794 F.2d 462.
Before SKOPIL and CANBY, Circuit Judges and SOLOMON * District Judge.
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The panel has voted to amend the opinion as follows. Delete the body of the section entitled on page 465 of 794 F.2d, and substitute the following:
The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the "clearly erroneous" standard. United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984)); United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343, 1348 (9th Cir.1985).
In the 5th and 6th lines from the bottom of col. 1, page 467, delete the words "then applicable."
In the first full paragraph, col. 2, page 467, change the next-to-last sentence to read: "We conclude that the district court clearly erred in ruling that the questioning about name, date of birth and place of birth did not constitute interrogation."
Add a citation to United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir.1986), on page 466, col. 1, 15 lines from the bottom, after "see also " and before the citation to United States v. Booth.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion of rehearing en banc, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted against it. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts, CV 93-1390-RSWL (EEx).
-
Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp.
... ... not reach consensus as to what determines whether an employee's expectation of privacy is reasonable, sufficient guidance was provided to allow us to conclude that, in this case, the district court erred in finding that under no circumstances could Schowengerdt have a reasonable expectation of ... ...
-
People v. Mickey
...appears to be a predominantly factual mixed question--are reviewed for substantial evidence or "clear error." (Cf. United States v. Poole (9th Cir.1986) 806 F.2d 853, 853 [holding that "[t]he determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, ......
-
Greene, In re
... ... With these propositions we can, and indeed must, agree. However, they will not readily decide the question before us ... We turn first to the decision of the bankruptcy court affirmed by the district court. The bankruptcy court dealt initially ... ...
-
CHAPTER 6 LITIGATION WITH INDIANS
...wells required to exhaust tribal court remedies before initiating diversity suit in federal court); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2461 (1987) (United States not required to exhaust tribal court remedies because federal sovereign ......
-
Modern Practice in the Indian Courts
...("outside Indian country tribal courts can have jurisdiction based on tribal membership . . ."). 58. United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) (tribal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin federal employee from carrying out official duties on reservation). Accord Armst......
-
CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
...remedy and Alaska could not avoid statute of limitations by making an ultra vires claim. [43] .United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9%gth%g Cir. 1986); Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. Department of the Interior, 154 F.3d 924, 929 (9%gth%g Cir. 1998). [44] .State ofAlaska v.......
-
CHAPTER 11 CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
...remedy and Alaska could not avoid statute of limitations by making an ultra vires claim. [43] 43. United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 1986); Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. Department of the Interior, 154 F.3d 924, 929 (9 Cir. 1998). [44] State of Alaska v. Babbit......