United States v. Daniel
Decision Date | 06 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 30858 Summary Calendar.,30858 Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 441 F.2d 374 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denvil Ronald DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles D. Flinn, Jr., Rome, Ga., Court appointed, for defendant-appellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., J. Owen Forrester, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Following a jury trial Denvil Ronald Daniel appeals from a judgment of conviction for possessing an unregistered still and producing illegal spirits in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601(a) (1) and 5601(a) (8). The sole question presented for our consideration is whether the government has sustained its "heavy burden" of showing that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The trial court found that this burden had been met. We affirm.
The relevant facts are substantially without dispute. Appellant was arrested at the site of an illegal still on December 19, 1969. The arresting agent testified that he advised Daniel of his constitutional rights in the following manner:
It is apparent from the record that the agent never asked appellant whether he waived his rights and that defendant never verbally expressed his intention to do so. In the circumstances of this case, this fact alone is not sufficient to negative the trial court's finding that there was in fact a valid waiver. We stated the applicable rule in United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215, 224 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970):
When a defendant warned of his rights makes his statement without a lawyer present, the prosecution may use these statements at trial only if it sustains its "heavy burden" of demonstrating that the defendant "knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel". * * * To be valid, a waiver must be made voluntarily, * * * and may not be presumed "simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained." * * * An express statement that the individual does not want a lawyer is not required, however, to show that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. James
...United States v. Montos, 5 Cir., 421 F.2d 215, 224 (1970), cert. den., 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532; United States v. Daniel, 5 Cir., 441 F.2d 374 (1971). To discharge its heavy burden of showing an implied waiver, 'All that the prosecution must show is that the defendant wa......
-
U.S. v. Micieli
...declined to exercise them by making the statement. See United States v. James, 528 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Daniel, 441 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970); Menendez v......
-
State v. Billy Wayne Penix Aka, Bill Davis
... ... PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE ... UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 AND 16 OF ... THE OHIO CONSTITUTION ... Osterburg ... (9th Cir.1970), 423 F.2d 704; United States v ... Daniel (5th Cir.1971), 441 F.2d 374 ... A ... written waiver, made after the ... ...
-
Dotson v. State
...warnings had been given.' See also Frazier v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 419 F.2d 1161. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Daniel, 441 F.2d 374, had before it a distilling case wherein the arresting agent gave the Miranda warnings. Furthermore, the agent testified that the defe......