United States v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 03 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 23269.,23269. |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 134 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Irene Rubio GARCIA, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Barry Tarlow (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
J. Kent Steele, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before JERTBERG, ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Garcia appeals from a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 174. Error in admitting Garcia's inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, compels reversal of her conviction and a remand for a new trial from which those statements will be excluded.
After Garcia was arrested, federal agents repeatedly questioned her. During the course of the interrogation sessions, the agents gave her several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings. On no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. Taken together, the warnings were inconsistent. At one point she was told that she had a right to the presence of counsel "when she answered any questions"; on another, she was told that she could "have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court."
The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. "The offer of counsel must be clarion and firm, not one of mere impressionism." Lathers v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 524, 535. (Accord, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez (9th Cir. 1968) 400 F.2d 593; Gilpin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 638.)
Discussion of the remaining contentions is rendered unnecessary by our disposition of the Miranda issue.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Prysock
...in time after police interrogation such as "if he [were] charged" as in Bolinski or at arraignment or trial as in United States v. Garcia (9th Cir. 1970) 431 F.2d 134. that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures...."&nbs......
-
State v. Maluia
...for you * * * if and when you go to court * * *' (see United States v. Cassell, 452 F.2d 533 (7th Cir. 1971)); United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970): defendant was told she could have an attorney appointed when she first appeared before the court, distinguished in United Sta......
-
United States v. Crumpton
...insufficient attempts to Mirandize Defendant may not be cobbled together to become constitutionally sufficient. See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970).4 The requirement of advising suspects that they have the right to discontinue talking at any time was later added. See Sp......
-
Duckworth v. Eagan, 88-317
...to the right to appointed counsel was linked with some future point in time." Id., at 360, 101 S.Ct., at 2810. In United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (CA9 1970) (per curiam ), for example, the suspect had been informed on one occasion that she had the right to appointed counsel " 'when sh......