From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Garcia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 3, 1970
431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970)

Summary

In United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (CA9 1970) (per curiam), for example, the suspect had been informed on one occasion that she had the right to appointed counsel "`when she answered any questions,'" and on another occasion that she could "`have an attorney appointed to represent [her] when [she] first appear[ed] before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court.'"

Summary of this case from Duckworth v. Eagan

Opinion

No. 23269.

September 3, 1970.

Barry Tarlow (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

J. Kent Steele, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG, ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.


Defendant Garcia appeals from a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 174. Error in admitting Garcia's inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, compels reversal of her conviction and a remand for a new trial from which those statements will be excluded.

After Garcia was arrested, federal agents repeatedly questioned her. During the course of the interrogation sessions, the agents gave her several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings. On no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. Taken together, the warnings were inconsistent. At one point she was told that she had a right to the presence of counsel "when she answered any questions"; on another, she was told that she could "have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court."

The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. "[T]he offer of counsel must be clarion and firm, not one of mere impressionism." Lathers v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 524, 535. ( Accord, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez (9th Cir. 1968) 400 F.2d 593; Gilpin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 638.)

Discussion of the remaining contentions is rendered unnecessary by our disposition of the Miranda issue.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

United States v. Garcia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 3, 1970
431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970)

In United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (CA9 1970) (per curiam), for example, the suspect had been informed on one occasion that she had the right to appointed counsel "`when she answered any questions,'" and on another occasion that she could "`have an attorney appointed to represent [her] when [she] first appear[ed] before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court.'"

Summary of this case from Duckworth v. Eagan

In United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (CA9 1970) (per curiam), for example, the court found inadequate advice to the defendant that she could "have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court."

Summary of this case from California v. Prysock

In Garcia, because the defendant never received a complete warning at any one time the defendant's right to appointed counsel "was linked with some future point in time after the police interrogation."

Summary of this case from Eagan v. Duckworth

warning stated that accused could have "an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court"

Summary of this case from United States v. Contreras

In United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with a very similar Miranda problem.

Summary of this case from Guyette, Application of

In Garcia defendant was told that she had a right to counsel during questioning, and that she had a right to have an attorney appointed "when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court."

Summary of this case from People v. Walters
Case details for

United States v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Irene Rubio GARCIA, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 3, 1970

Citations

431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

State v. Glidden

Id. at 361 (quotation omitted). As examples of impermissible warnings that linked "the reference to appointed…

De La ROSA v. STATE OF TEX

De La Rosa does not claim that he did not receive Miranda warnings. Rather, his principal contention is that…