United States v. Ghiz, 72-1728.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1728.,72-1728. |
| Citation | 491 F.2d 599 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Louis GHIZ, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
John B. Carrico, Charleston, W. Va. (Stanley E. Preiser and David C. McCue, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Robert B. King, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John A. Field, III, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Louis Ghiz was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia of transporting a stolen vehicle from Charleston, West Virginia, to Gary, Indiana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment, from which he appeals.
Because Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Knott, was allowed to testify as to the defendant's assertion of his fifth amendment privilege, we must reverse.
Several FBI agents interviewed Ghiz twice in regard to the charge in the indictment and related crimes and incidents. Special Agent Calvin D. Knott testified concerning one of these conversations as follows:
The defendant claims that this testimony constitutes an improper reference to an exercise by him of his fifth amendment privilege.1 The Supreme Court has clearly held that a defendant's refusal to answer questions cannot be used against him at trial, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and this Court has recently indicated that if, in declining to answer certain questions, a criminal accused invokes his fifth amendment privilege or in any other manner indicates he is relying on his understanding of the Miranda warning, evidence of his silence or of his refusal to answer specific questions is inadmissible. United States v. Moore, 4 Cir., 484 F.2d 1284, 1285-1286.
There can be little doubt that in stating that he did not desire to answer any questions concerning the Mack tractor, Ghiz was relying on his understanding of the Miranda warning which had been read to him at the beginning of the interview. He was on trial for the unlawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McReavy
... ... United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 182-183, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 2139-2140, 45 ... In United States v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599 (CA 4, 1974), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ... ...
-
Salinas v. Tex.
...; United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483, 486 (C.A.10 1993) ; Grieco v. Hall, 641 F.2d 1029, 1034 (C.A.1 1981) ; United States v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599, 600 (C.A.4 1974). But see, e.g., United States v. Harris, 956 F.2d 177, 181 (C.A.8 1992).The cases in which this Court has insisted that a......
-
Salinas v. Texas
...United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483, 486 (C.A.10 1993); Grieco v. Hall, 641 F.2d 1029, 1034 (C.A.1 1981); United States v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599, 600 (C.A.4 1974). But see, e.g., United States v. Harris, 956 F.2d 177, 181 (C.A.8 1992). The cases in which this Court has insisted that a de......
-
State v. Zeko
...mute or claimed his privilege in the face of accusation." Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct. 1625; accord, United States v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Guzman, 446 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1022, 92 S.Ct. 697, 30 L.Ed.2d 672 (1972......