United States v. Knight
| Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 22521. |
| Citation | 261 F. Supp. 843 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Charles E. KNIGHT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert St. Leger Goggin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Austin Hogan, Defender Ass'n of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The defendant Charles E. Knight stands convicted of mail theft and related charges, the offenses having occurred during the period from October, 1964, to June, 1965, while the defendant was on active duty with the United States Air Force, as mail room clerk at Kindley Air Force Base, Bermuda, B.W.I. His post-trial motions raise a single issue: the admissibility in evidence of certain oral and written admissions made by the defendant during questioning by air force personnel subsequent to his discharge from the service.
The facts are not controverted. The defendant was discharged from the air force on June 21, 1965, and returned to his home in Philadelphia. In August of that year, Agent Otero of the Office of Special Investigations of the United States Air Force telephoned the defendant, advised him that that office was investigating certain matters which had occurred at Kindley Air Fore Base during defendant's tenure there; advised the defendant that Otero did not wish to discuss these matters by telephone; and sought to arrange an appointment. The defendant agreed to meet with Mr. Otero at the latter's office the following morning, August 3, 1965.
The defendant failed to keep the appointment, whereupon Agent Brown, Otero's superior, telephoned the defendant to inquire why he had not kept the appointment. The defendant apologized, stating he had overslept, and agreed to meet with the agents at their office on August 5th.
On August 5, 1965, at the appointed time, the defendant reported to the investigators' office. They showed him their credentials, advised him of the nature of the investigation they were conducting, and repeatedly advised him that he need not make any statement, and that he had a right to have counsel present if he desired. The defendant told them that he did not wish counsel. Thereupon, the agents proceeded to question the defendant. Initially, he denied any knowledge of the mail thefts, but, after about a half hour, admitted his guilt. Thereupon, a written statement was taken, after the defendant was again warned of his rights.
Without going into all of the details, it is sufficient to state that it clearly appears that the defendant was given every warning which the subsequent decision of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. State
...1968); Sharbor v. Gathright, 295 F.Supp. 386 (W.D.Va.1969); United States v. Kubik, 266 F.Supp. 501 (S.D.Iowa 1967); United States v. Knight, 261 F.Supp. 843 (E.D.Pa.1966); United States v. Littlepage, 435 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970); People v. Pantoja, 28 Mich.App. 681, 184 N.W.2d 762 (1970);......
-
Steigler v. Anderson
...United States v. Scully, 415 F.2d 680 (2d Cir. 1969); Freije v. United States, 408 F.2d 100 (1st Cir. 1969). Cf. United States v. Knight, 261 F.Supp. 843, 844 (E.D.Pa.1966). 27 United States v. Clark, 425 F.2d 827, 832 (3d Cir. 1970). 28 This view is also strengthened by the Supreme Court's......
-
State v. Williams
...and the evidence taken as a whole, 'tends to negative any such state of mind on the part of the defendant.' See United States v. Knight, 261 F.Supp. 843, 844 (E.D.Penn.1966). A further answer to any such contention is that a person may feel detained or actually be detained and yet not be ar......
-
United States v. Gleason
...United States v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3 L.Ed.2d 1534 (1959); United States v. Knight, 261 F.Supp. 843 (E.D. Pa.1966); United States v. Davis, 259 F.Supp. 496 (D.Mass.1966). This court agrees with, and will follow, the results in the ci......