United States v. Taylor, 032118 FED9, 17-50187
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RALPH DEON TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, Chief District Judge.|
|Case Date:||March 21, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2018 Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:16-cr-00805-RGK-1, R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, [*] Chief District Judge.
Appellant Ralph Taylor appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Taylor asserts that three statements he made to officers while they searched his apartment should have been suppressed as a result of an un-Mirandized custodial interrogation. Specifically, Taylor argues that his statement identifying a jacket as his, his statement implying that ammunition found in the apartment was his, and his statement, "it's all over, " when officers found a firearm in what appeared to be his bedroom, should have been suppressed. Despite Taylor's failure to object to the admissibility of the statements in his pretrial Motion in Limine, because the district court explicitly ruled on the admissibility of Taylor's statements, we review de novo. See United States v. Liu, 941 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1991) ("A pretrial motion in limine preserves for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence if the substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing and the district court's ruling permitting introduction of evidence was explicit and definitive.").
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend V. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court established that "when a person is 'in custody, ' procedural safeguards must be afforded that person before the person is questioned" to protect their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. United States v. Cazares, 788 F.3d 956, 980 (9th Cir. 2015). If a person is not given these procedural safeguards, 1 the prosecution may not use what it learned through its custodial interrogation. Id. Violations of these procedural safeguards are subject to harmless error analysis. See United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1376 (9th Cir. ...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP