United States v. Priest, No. 26303.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtJOHN R. BROWN, , and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit
Citation409 F.2d 491
Decision Date27 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 26303.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Knox PRIEST, Defendant-Appellant.

409 F.2d 491 (1969)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Cecil Knox PRIEST, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 26303.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 27, 1969.


409 F.2d 492

John H. Stennis, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. Donald Strange, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

Having studied the record and briefs in this case, we have determined that it is appropriate for summary disposition without oral argument. Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Clerk of this Court has been directed to put the case on the summary calendar and notify the parties in writing.1

Cecil Knox Priest, a nineteen year old boy with an eighth-grade education, was convicted by a jury of theft of a government automobile in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. In this Court, he challenges the refusal of the court below to grant his motion to suppress a confession which the Government proposed to put in evidence through the testimony of F. B. I. Agent Jack Wilson. The incriminating statement was elicited by the agent during custodial interrogation at a hospital in Vicksburg, Mississippi where appellant was recovering from injuries. The agent went to appellant's hospital room on the morning of December 27, 1967 and gave him the Bureau's standard form containing the Miranda warning. It is conceded by everyone concerned that at this point Priest said he did not want to sign the form until he had consulted with an attorney. This obvious request for an attorney was ignored,

409 F.2d 493
the interrogation proceeded, and in due course a confession was obtained

The question argued on the motion to suppress and presented by the briefs in the Court is whether the confession was inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974. Two very clear passages from the decision itself settle the issue:

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however he
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 practice notes
  • Nash v. State, No. 44421
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 11, 1972
    ...of the law enforcement authorities to obtain waiver or other circumstances presented. He cites and relies upon United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1969); People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714, 68 Cal.Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625 (1968); People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188,......
  • Ford v. Strickland, No. 81-6200
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1982
    ...contrary to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, including United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1969), 1 and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). He argues that having invoked without waiving ......
  • Ford v. Strickland, No. 81-6200
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1983
    ...contrary to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, including United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir.1969), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). He argues that having invoked without waiving his......
  • People v. Grant
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1978
    ...P.2d 864; State v. Boggs, 16 Wash.App. 682, 559 P.2d 11; State v. Haynes, 16 Wash.App. 778, 559 P.2d 583; United States v. Priest, 5 Cir., 409 F.2d 491; United States v. De Leon, D.C., 412 F.Supp. 89; United States v. Jakakas, D.C., 423 F.Supp. 564, 569; Combs v. Wingo, 6 Cir., 465 F.2d 96;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
60 cases
  • Nash v. State, No. 44421
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 11, 1972
    ...of the law enforcement authorities to obtain waiver or other circumstances presented. He cites and relies upon United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1969); People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714, 68 Cal.Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625 (1968); People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188,......
  • Ford v. Strickland, No. 81-6200
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1982
    ...contrary to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, including United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1969), 1 and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). He argues that having invoked without waiving ......
  • Ford v. Strickland, No. 81-6200
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1983
    ...contrary to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, including United States v. Priest, 409 F.2d 491 (5th Cir.1969), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). He argues that having invoked without waiving his......
  • People v. Grant
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1978
    ...P.2d 864; State v. Boggs, 16 Wash.App. 682, 559 P.2d 11; State v. Haynes, 16 Wash.App. 778, 559 P.2d 583; United States v. Priest, 5 Cir., 409 F.2d 491; United States v. De Leon, D.C., 412 F.Supp. 89; United States v. Jakakas, D.C., 423 F.Supp. 564, 569; Combs v. Wingo, 6 Cir., 465 F.2d 96;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT