United States v. Stuckey, 18859.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 18859.,18859. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Jesse J. STUCKEY, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Richard C. Brittain, Danville, Pa., for appellant.
Harry A. Nagle, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lewisburg, Pa. (S. John Cottone, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before ADAMS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges and WHIPPLE, District Judge.
Appellant, Jesse J. Stuckey, appeals from his conviction in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1792 and § 2. Specifically, he was found guilty of possession of a knife-like instrument while a prisoner at Lewisburg Penitentiary. Appellant argues that the court erred in admitting an FBI agent's testimony concerning certain oral admissions made by Stuckey. Out of the presence of the jury the trial judge conducted a hearing on these statements, at which time Special Agent Mayfield testified that he personally interviewed Stuckey at Lewisburg. At that time the "Miranda" warnings were given in the following manner:
p. 69 Transcript — Joint Exhibit G.
Mayfield later testified that he went over each specific warning listed on the card and Stuckey then told him (Mayfield) that he wouldn't sign it, but he had no objections to discussing the matter with the agents. Stuckey himself offered no testimony at the hearing or at trial.
The rule in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694 (1966) does not require that a waiver of rights be in writing, but only that it be voluntarily, willingly and intelligently made. This case is not dissimilar from United States v. Ruth, 394 F.2d 134 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 393 U.S. 888, 89 S.Ct. 206, 21 L.Ed.2d 166 (1968). This court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the fact that Stuckey made oral statements must mean that he could not have understood the nature of the warning. There is no evidence of misunderstanding and we decline to manufacture such evidence in lieu of its absence in the record. This case is factually distinguishable from United States v. Frazier (D.C.Cir. Feb. 24, 1971). In that case there was evidence that the defendant did not understand the meaning of the warnings and the police either knew it or should have known it.
In addition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina v. Butler
...state as much. 5United States v. Speaks, 453 F.2d 966 (CA1 1972); United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171 (CA2 1974); United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104 (CA3 1971); Blackmon v. Blackledge, 541 F.2d 1070 (CA4 1976); United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (CA4 1967); United States v. Cavall......
-
Ragland v. Com.
...of any statement made by a defendant." (Emphasis added.)). Nor do the warnings have to be in writing, United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104, 1105 (3d Cir.1971), much less audiotaped or videotaped. Cf. Brashars v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 58, 60-62 (Ky.2000) (no constitutional requirement t......
-
Mitchell v. Keane
...States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.1989); Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104, 1105-06 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 841, 92 S.Ct. 136, 30 L.Ed.2d 76 (1971)); see also United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (......
-
People v. Pierson
...United States v. Cobbs, 481 F.2d 196 (3d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 980, 94 S.Ct. 298, 38 L.Ed.2d 224 (1973); United States v. Stuckey, 441 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1971); Blackmon v. Blackledge, 541 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir.1967); United State......