U.S. v. Porter, 83-1791
| Decision Date | 31 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1791,83-1791 |
| Citation | 776 F.2d 370 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Paul C. PORTER, Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, COFFIN, BOWNES, BREYER, TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and PEREZ-GIMENEZ, * District Judge.
Prior report: 764 F.2d 1.
We do not consider this opinion to announce a per se rule. Rather, we need only say, as several other circuits have said, that where the accused's words and actions are ambiguous as to whether he wishes a lawyer (at least as ambiguous as in the present case), the questioning officers must find out more specifically whether he wants a lawyer before they can proceed further with other questioning. On the record before us, we deem the questioning impermissible even under a standard that restricts further questioning to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1130-31 (5th Cir.1984) (citing Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 772 (5th Cir.1979) and Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc); United States v. Riggs, 537 F.2d 1219, 1222 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Prestigiacomo, 504 F.Supp. 681, 683 (E.D.N.Y.1981); United States v. Grullon, 496 F.Supp. 991, 997 (E.D.Pa.1979).
This order in no way changes Chief Judge Campbell's concurring Dubitante.
The petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are denied.
* Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. United States
...that the Government failed to argue it — and it is that refusal which my present statement addresses. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Porter, 776 F.2d 370 (CA1 1985) (en banc); United States v. Gotay, 844 F.2d 971, 975 (CA2 1988); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 771-772 (CA5 1979) (en b......
-
U.S. v. Spitler
... ... 1016, 1018 (S.D.N.Y.1970), aff'd, 449 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir.1971). Accord United States v. Porter", 764 F.2d 1, 14 (1st Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 776 F.2d 370 (1985) ... \xC2" ... indication on appeal that the requisite degree of prejudice in fact occurred at trial, precludes us from concluding the defendants suffered an unfair trial from their decision to present no evidence ... ...
-
Holland v. State
...designed to clarify the earlier statement and the suspect's desire for counsel."); see Towne, 899 F.2d at 1106; United States v. Porter, 776 F.2d 370 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1048, 107 S.Ct. 2178, 95 L.Ed.2d 835 (1987); United States v. Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1130-31 (5th Cir.......
-
U.S. v. Eaton
...interrogation except to clarify the request), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1756, 100 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988); United States v. Porter, 776 F.2d 370 (1st Cir.1985) (order of court) ("where the accused's words and actions are ambiguous as to whether he wishes a lawyer ... the questioning......