United States v. Burley
| Decision Date | 12 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 1808. |
| Citation | 280 F. Supp. 672 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Melvin Nathaniel BURLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
L. Vincent Ramunno, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Daniel F. Kelleher, of Theisen & Lank, Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
On October 24, 1967, defendant Burley was convicted by a jury of violating Title 26 U.S.C. § 5851 by having in his possession a firearm as defined by Title 26 U.S.C. § 5848(1),1 which had not been registered as required by Title 26 U.S.C. § 5841. The defendant has moved for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial.2
There are two grounds urged in support of this motion: (1) the Court erred in admitting the oral statement of the defendant allegedly taken in violation of his Constitutional rights as defined in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Because the question of admissibility of the defendant's oral statement permeates both the prayer for a judgment of acquittal and that for a new trial, it will be considered first. The defendant contends that his Constitutional rights were infringed when his oral statement was admitted into evidence over his objection. The basis of the objection was, and the ground of this motion is, that after the Special Agents explained his rights to him, the defendant stated that he did not wish to make a statement. Despite this entreaty, the defendant alleges that the Agents proceeded to talk with him and to elicit a statement in contravention of the Supreme Court's injunction in Miranda that the questioning must stop whenever the defendant indicates that that is his desire.
The statement in question was the subject of a motion to suppress, upon which a full hearing was held. In two unreported opinions, this Court denied the motion.3 The motion was renewed again at trial when Agent Nelson was asked to repeat Burley's oral statement. The jury was dismissed and the Court heard evidence bearing on the taking of the defendant's statement. From the testimony the Court concluded that Agents Nelson and Naylor fully advised the defendant of his rights; that the defendant acknowledged that he understood the warning; and that only then did the Agents proceed to interrogate the defendant. The interrogation commenced with the Agents' request for a statement,4 to which the defendant replied that he would not give them a written statement or sign one, but that he would answer questions put to him orally, which he then proceeded to do giving an apparently exculpatory version of what had happened.
Agent Naylor testified at a later point in the trial and his testimony fully verified that of Agent Nelson. The defendant's own testimony essentially confirmed that given by the Agents; though the defendant's account stresses that he said that he did not want to make "a statement or sign one", which he suggests meant that he did not want to talk to the Agents at all. After observing the defendant testify and listening closely to his testimony, this Court was convinced that the omission of the word "written" from the defendant's version of what occurred was more a product of wishful thinking than of accurate recollection.
Before the jury was returned, the Court ruled that the statement was voluntarily given. The jury then was recalled and the evidence on the question of voluntariness was again recited.5 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was charged appropriately on the question of voluntariness. A guilty verdict was returned.
After reflecting anew on the defendant's claim that the oral statement was not a voluntary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Doss
...182 Neb. 451, 155 N.W.2d 438; Spurlin v. State (Miss.), 218 So.2d 876; Combs v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 438 S.W.2d 82; United States v. Burley, D.C., 280 F.Supp. 672; Bazzell v. State, 6 Md.App. 194, 250 A.2d Next, it is contended that the trial court erred in not suppressing the revolver and $......
-
State v. Gutierrez
...would not give a written statement coupled with his subsequent oral remarks supports a finding of voluntariness. See United States v. Burley, 280 F.Supp. 672 (D.Del. 1968). These circumstances, we think resulted in a voluntary waiver of the right to remain silent. Silence at a time prior to......
-
Gardner v. State
...to obtain a verbal statement would ordinarily not be precluded. See State v. Gutierrez, 79 N.Mex. 732, 449 P.2d 334; United States v. Burley, 280 F.Supp. 672 (U.S.D.C.Del.).6 These questions, left unresolved by the court, were brought squarely before it at the hearing on the admissibility o......