U.S. v. Valle, 80-1749
| Decision Date | 01 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1749,80-1749 |
| Citation | 644 F.2d 374 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlos VALLE, Appellant. |
Ronald S. Reed, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert G. Ulrich, Asst. U. S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff-appellee.
R. Steven Brown, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and STEPHENSON and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Valle was convicted of knowingly and willfully depositing or causing to be deposited in the mail a letter containing a threat to take the life of the President of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). He brings this appeal.
Valle alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress statements made by him to a Secret Service Agent while he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland, Kentucky. As one of his grounds for error Valle contends that the trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant. We initially remanded this case to the trial court with instructions to review the evidence and make new findings regarding the voluntariness of Valle's statement according to guidelines set out in Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 626, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972) and Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 97 S.Ct. 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976). On remand the trial court found that Valle had been fully warned of his Miranda rights; that he understood them and did not make any request for an attorney; that he stated that he was willing to talk to the Secret Service Agent; and that the statement in question was voluntarily given by Valle. The trial court concluded that the prosecution proved the voluntariness of Valle's statement by an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
Valle disputes the trial court's finding that the statement was made voluntarily. After being advised of his Miranda rights Valle claims that he requested an attorney but was not provided with one and was instead subjected to questioning by Secret Service Agent Bell. During the questioning Valle made a statement to Bell, but in the suppression hearing there was contradictory testimony as to the exact text of the statement. 1 Bell testified that he read Valle his rights and that Valle indicated a willingness to talk to him but refused to sign the form waiving his Miranda rights. Bell stated that Valle did not request an attorney.
In assessing the voluntariness of a waiver of Miranda rights this court has held that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dusablon, Cr. No. 81-00009-B.
...interrogated." Id. Moreover, the refusal to sign a waiver is not, in and of itself, determinative. See id.; United States v. Valle, 644 F.2d 374, 375-76 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) defendant who refused to sign waiver form, but indicated willingness to talk, implicitly waived rights; Unite......
-
U.S. v. Bentley
...trial court with respect to suppression motions will be set aside only where clearly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Valle, 644 F.2d 374, 375 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam); United States v. Bear Killer, 534 F.2d 1253, 1257 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 846, 97 S.Ct. 129, 50 L.Ed.2......
-
State v. Discoe
...798 (1977) ], there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's determination. See United States v. Valle, 644 F.2d 374 (8th Cir.1981); Nelson v. State, 398 So.2d 421 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); People v. Traubert, 199 Colo. 322, 608 P.2d 342 (1980); People v. Sco......
-
U.S. v. Carlson
...concerning a motion to suppress will be upheld where it can be supported by any reasonable view of the evidence." United States v. Valle, 644 F.2d 374, (8th Cir.1981). We conclude that the finding that no search took place prior to the arrival of the warrant is amply Affirmed. 1 The Honorab......