DOCSLIB.ORG

CH 10 Confessions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CH 10 Confessions CONFESSIONS .............................................................................................. 1 §10-1 Fifth Amendment Rights .......................................................................... 1 §10-2 Suppression Motions and Hearings ..................................................... 12 §10-3 Miranda Warnings ................................................................................... 17 §10-3(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 17 §10-3(b) Non-Police Interrogation ............................................................. 26 §10-3(c) “In custody” .................................................................................... 28 §10-3(d) “Interrogation” ............................................................................... 49 §10-4 Waiver of Rights ....................................................................................... 53 §10-4(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 53 §10-4(b) Interrogation After the Right to Counsel Attaches ............... 62 §10-4(c) Interrogation After Request for Counsel ................................. 68 §10-4(d) Interrogation After Request to Remain Silent ....................... 82 §10-5 Voluntariness ............................................................................................ 89 §10-5(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 89 §10-5(b) Examples: Voluntary Statements ............................................. 102 §10-5(c) Examples Involuntary Statements .......................................... 109 §10-5(c)(1) Examples: Involuntary Statements by Adults ............ 109 §10-5(c)(2) Examples: Involuntary Statements by Minors ........... 118 §10-6 Statements After Unlawful Arrest ...................................................... 127 §10-6(a) Generally ....................................................................................... 127 §10-6(b) Examples: Attenuation Sufficient ............................................ 131 §10-6(c) Examples: Attenuation Insufficient ........................................ 133 §10-7 Impeachment with Inadmissible Statements .................................. 142 i §10-8 Use of Defendant’s Silence and Failure to Testify .......................... 144 §10-8(a) Defendant’s Silence ..................................................................... 144 §10-8(b) Defendant’s Failure to Testify .................................................. 155 §10-9 Use of Defendant’s Prior Testimony and Plea Discussion Statements .................................................................................................... 156 §10-10 Use of Codefendants’ Statements .................................................. 159 §10-11 Statements Made During Mental Examinations ........................ 166 ii CONFESSIONS §10-1 Fifth Amendment Rights United States Supreme Court Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006) Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a person detained by authorities in a foreign country must be advised of his right to have his nation's consular office informed of the arrest. Suppression of statements which an arrestee makes in response to police interrogation is not an appropriate remedy for the failure to inform the arrestee of his rights under the Convention. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Nevada Humbold County, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) Neither the Fourth nor Fifth Amendments are violated by a state statute obligating a citizen to disclose his name during a Terry stop. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 123 S.Ct. 1994, 155 L.Ed.2d 984 (2003) Fifth Amendment is violated where a statement that was compelled by police interrogation is used against defendant in a criminal proceeding. Where defendant was interrogated without Miranda warnings and while he was being treated for gunshot wounds, but no criminal charges were filed, the Fifth Amendment was not violated. Because the officer did not violate the Fifth Amendment, he was entitled to claim "qualified immunity" in a civil suit seeking damages for the alleged violation. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause was not violated by the officer's actions. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits convictions based on evidence obtained by methods that are "so brutal and so offensive to human dignity" as to shock the conscience, or which involve "the most egregious official conduct." Questioning a suspect while he is being treated for gunshot wounds does not reach the level of egregiousness required for a Fourteenth Amendment violation. McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002) Defendant, a convicted sex offender who was completing his sentence, was ordered to participate in a pre-release treatment program for sex offenders. Participants in the program were required to sign a form accepting responsibility for their crimes and complete a sexual history form detailing prior sexual activities, including uncharged offenses. Polygraph examinations were used to verify the accuracy and completeness of the answers. Immunity was not offered, although no inmate had ever been prosecuted based upon information disclosed through the program. Staff members are required to disclose to law enforcement authorities any statements concerning uncharged sexual offenses involving minors. Defendant refused to participate in the program, claiming that the required disclosures would violate his right against self-incrimination and possibly subject him to a perjury charge in light of his trial testimony that the activity had been consensual. Prison officials responded that unless defendant participated, his privileges would be reduced and he would be transferred to a maximum security institution. Defendant filed for injunctive relief to prevent such sanctions. 1 Revocation of privileges and transfer to a less advantageous institution did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 121 S.Ct. 1252, 149 L.Ed.2d 158 (2001) The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies to witnesses who have "reasonable cause to apprehend danger" from answering a particular question. The Ohio Supreme Court erred by holding that the privilege is unavailable where a witness claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing. See also, People v. Dmitriyev, 302 Ill.App.3d 814, 707 N.E.2d 121 (1st Dist. 1998) (a witness may exercise his right against self-incrimination if he reasonably suspects that by answering he will expose himself to prosecution; a witness's attempt to exercise his privilege may be denied only where it is "perfectly clear, considering all the circumstances, that the answer sought cannot have a tendency to incriminate"); People v. McNeal, 301 Ill.App.3d 889, 704 N.E.2d 793 (1st Dist. 1998) (trial court erred by holding defendant in contempt for refusing to testify at a trial on charges which the defense claimed were related to charges pending against him but which the State claimed were unrelated; the defense's assertions showed reasonable cause to fear that defendant's answers might be incriminating at his subsequent trial). U.S. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled disclosure of incriminating statements that are "testimonial." A suspect may be required to engage in non-testimonial conduct, such as putting on a particular shirt or making a voice exemplar, even if incriminating evidence results. Similarly, a suspect may be required to produce documents which contain "incriminating assertions of fact or belief," so long as the "creation of those documents was not ‘compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." Apart from whether the contents of the documents are privileged, however, the act of production may have "testimonial" aspects that are protected by the Fifth Amendment. In addition, the Fifth Amendment protects against the prosecution's use of compelled statements to discover incriminating evidence. Where defendant received immunity under a federal statute that has been held to be "coextensive" with the Fifth Amendment, and thereafter produced 13,000 pages of documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum, he could not be prosecuted on charges related to matters disclosed in the documents unless the prosecution proved that its evidence "was derived from legitimate sources ‘wholly independent' of the testimonial aspect of respondent's immunized conduct in assembling and producing the documents described in the subpoena." Mitchell v. U.S., 526 U.S. 314, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999) The fact that defendant pleads guilty does not waive Fifth Amendment rights at sentencing, even as to the facts of the crime to which the plea was entered. See also, People v. Iseminger, 202 Ill.App.3d 581, 560 N.E.2d 445 (4th Dist. 1990)(a trial judge may properly make inquiries of defendant at sentencing hearing, regardless whether he testifies or exercises his right of allocution; where a Fifth Amendment claim is raised, however, the trial judge should conduct a hearing); People v. Anderson, 284 Ill.App.3d 708, 672 N.E.2d 1314 (4th Dist. 1996)("[A] defendant has no right to refuse to answer the trial court's questions at the sentencing hearing except - perhaps - when fifth amendment concerns are legitimately implicated.") Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LARRY SPENCER, Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. 05-C-0666-C CATHY FARREY, Warden, New Lisbon Correctional Institution, Respondent. This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Larry Spencer, an inmate at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution, collaterally attacks the judgments of conviction imposed upon him by the Circuit Court for Dane County following petitioner’s entry of Alford pleas in two cases, 01 CF 1125, a case involving multiple forgery counts, and 01 CF 1242, a drug case. This court previously dismissed petitioner’s attack on the latter case on grounds of procedural default. Now before the court for decision are the claims attacking the validity of the forgery conviction. Those claims, as construed by this court in previous orders, are the following: 1) petitioner’s plea was involuntary because a) it was coerced; b) his lawyer misled him about the nature of an Alford plea and c) the trial court said nothing at the plea hearing to correct petitioner’s misunderstanding; 2) the trial court violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to self- representation by refusing to allow petitioner to represent himself at trial; 3) petitioner’s trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to seek a competency evaluation of petitioner before allowing petitioner to enter an Alford plea; and 4) petitioner’s appellate lawyer was ineffective for raising only this last issue on appeal. There is no dispute that petitioner has procedurally defaulted his first two claims by failing to fairly present them to the state courts on direct appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Combat Crime Related to Falsified Medical Products
    COMBATING FALSIFIED MEDICAL PRODUCT-RELATED CR ME A GUIDE TO GOOD LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME COMBATING FALSIFIED MEDICAL PRODUCT-RELATED CRIME: A GUIDE TO GOOD LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2019 i Acknowledgements This Guide was prepared by the Organized Crime Branch, Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and was funded by France. This Guide benefited from the invaluable contributions of numerous experts in falsified medical products from all continents of the world, acting in their individual capacity. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime also wishes to thank the Council of Europe, the Economic Community of West African States, the European Union, the International Council of Nurses, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, the World Customs Organization and the World Health Organization for providing their expertise. Core team Hugo Bonar, Antonio De Vivo, Marion Ehalt, Karen Kramer, Riikka Puttonen and Christian Tournié Legal editing Colin Craig © United Nations, May 2019. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNODC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
    [Show full text]
  • You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 30 | Number 2 Article 5 2003 You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Avery, You Have a Right to Remain Silent, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 571 (2002). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You Have a Right to Remain Silent Cover Page Footnote The Author ppra eciates the advice of Professor Susan Klein, University of Texas Law School with respect to Fifth Amendment issues and the assistance of his colleague Professor Marie Ashe. The assistance of the Deans of Suffolk Law School with summer writing stipends made this work possible. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Michael Avery* INTRODUCTION Everyone who watches television knows that when someone is arrested, the police have to "Mirandize"1 the suspect by reading his rights to him and that one of those rights is the "right to remain silent." The general public also knows that the suspect has the right to see a lawyer.2 Of course, in crime dramas these rights are often violated, but no one questions that they exist.
    [Show full text]
  • SLIP OPINION (Not the Court’S Final Written Decision)
    NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there. Fl L E IN CLERKS OFFICE llJIAEME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON This oplnlonwas filed fOr record.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Tax Manual Prev Next TABLE OF
    Criminal Tax Manual prev ● next TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.00 PLEA AGREEMENTS AND DETENTION POLICIES ........................................... 1 5.01 TAX DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT POLICY ................................................. 1 5.01[1] Offense of Conviction — The Major Count Policy ....................................... 1 5.01[2] Relevant Conduct and Tax Loss..................................................................... 2 5.01[3] Waiver of Appeal of Sentence in Plea Agreements ....................................... 2 5.01[4] Nolo Contendere Pleas ................................................................................... 3 5.01[5] Alford Pleas .................................................................................................... 4 5.01[6] Statements by Government Counsel at Sentencing; Agreeing to Probation .. 4 5.01[7] Compromise of Criminal Liability/Civil Settlement ...................................... 5 5.01[8] Contract Terms, Breach, and Enforcement .................................................... 7 5.02 EXPEDITED PLEA PROGRAM ........................................................................... 9 5.03 TRANSFER FROM DISTRICT FOR PLEA AND SENTENCE ........................ 10 5.04 DETENTION AND BAIL DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS ....... 11 9080389.1 5.00 PLEA AGREEMENTS AND DETENTION POLICIES 5.01 TAX DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT POLICY 5.01[1] Offense of Conviction — The Major Count Policy The Tax Division designates at least one count in each authorized tax case as the “major count.” The
    [Show full text]
  • European Convention on Extradition
    European Treaty Series - No. 24 European Convention on Extradition Paris, 13.XII.1957 The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Considering that this purpose can be attained by the conclusion of agreements and by common action in legal matters; Considering that the acceptance of uniform rules with regard to extradition is likely to assist this work of unification, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 – Obligation to extradite The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order. Article 2 – Extraditable offences 1 Extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. Where a conviction and prison sentence have occurred or a detention order has been made in the territory of the requesting Party, the punishment awarded must have been for a period of at least four months. 2 If the request for extradition includes several separate offences each of which is punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order, but of which some do not fulfil the condition with regard to the amount of punishment which may be awarded, the requested Party shall also have the right to grant extradition for the latter offences.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Study Guide Chapter Seven
    STUDENT STUDY GUIDE CHAPTER SEVEN Multiple Choice Questions 1. Which of the following contributes to a large amount of public attention for a criminal trial? a. Spectacular crime b. Notorious parties c. Sympathetic victim d. All of the above 2. How are most criminal cases resolved? a. Arraignment b. Plea Bargaining c. Trials d. Appeals 3. Preventive detention has been enacted into law through the ____________. a. Bail Reform Act b. Bail Restoration Act c. Bond Improvement Act d. Bond Policy Act 4. The customary fee for a bail bondsman is ____ of the bail amount. a. 5% b. 10% c. 20% d. 25% 5. Which of the following is not a feature of the grand jury? a. Open to the public b. Advised by a prosecuting attorney c. Sworn to forever secrecy d. Size variation among states 6. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court enters a(n) ____________ plea on his or her behalf. a. guilty b. not guilty c. nolo contendere d. Alford 1 7. Who is responsible for preparing a presentence investigation report? a. Judge b. Jury c. Probation officer d. Corrections officer 8. If a motion for _____________ is granted, one side may have to produce lists of witnesses and witness roles in the case. a. discovery b. severance c. suppression d. summary judgment 9. Which of the following motions may be requested in order to make the defendant appear less culpable? a. Motion for discovery b. Motion in limine c. Motion for change of venue d. Motion to sever 10. Which of the following motions might be requested as the result of excessive pretrial publicity? a.
    [Show full text]
  • World Law Bulletin, February 2001
    WLB 2001.02, February 2001 Indian rights The LAW Intellectual property law Internet security regulation Islamic edicts LIBRARY of Judicial independence Lifelong learning Marriage law CONGRESS Nuclear power plant Press freedom Privacy Wrongful birth case Updates: WORLD • World Trade Organization LAW • European Union Developments BULLETIN FOREIGN LAW FOCUS: Germany: Constitutional Court Rules on the Recognition of Jehovah’s Administration of medicines Witnesses Auditors China/Vietnam joint statement Embryo research People’s Republic of China: Farmers’ associations Extradition Law Firearms trading Foreign investment Income tax 2 WLB, No. 2001.02 –Lifelong learning law –Tax law amended The WORLD LAW EUROPE BULLETIN: a monthly France–Embryo research awareness service prepared by the Staff –“Wrongful birth” case of the Law Library of Congress. The Netherlands–Action against illegal trading in Editors: Constance Axinn Johnson and firearms Wendy I. Zeldin. For more information --Cameras and Privacy or research tailored to your needs, call: Slovakia–Auditors the Directorate of Legal Research, Ukraine–Hearings on press freedom at 7-4351 or fax: 7-1820. The Bulletin and information on Law SOUTH PACIFC Library services for Congress can be Australia–Judicial Independence found online: http://lcweb.loc.gov/law/congress. LAW AND ORGANIZATIONS– INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL GLIN: The Global Legal Information China/Vietnam–Cooperation statement Network, a primary source of authentic legal information serving congressional research needs, is accessed through
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 13, No. 1: Full Issue
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 13 Number 1 Fall Article 13 May 2020 Vol. 13, no. 1: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 13 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y (1983). This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 13 1983-1984 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy VOLUME 13 NUMBER 1 FALL 1983 MYRES S. MCDOUGAL DISTINGUISHED LECTURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: ILLEGALITY IN CONTEXT .................... Burns H. Weston 1 The University of Denver College of Law was honored to have Professor Burns H. Weston, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa, as its guest speaker for the eighth annual Myres S. McDougal Distinguished Lecture. Professor Weston chose to address the topic of assessing the legality of nu- clear weapons and warfare, and he notes it is the special obligation of law- yers, "together with our clerical friends, to point up the normative rights and wrongs of coercive nuclearism." In his remarks, Professor Weston ac- knowledges that while there are no explicit treaties or treaty provisions which render nuclear weapons illegal per se, there are six "core rules" appli- cable to nuclear weapons which may be derived from the conventional and customary laws of war.
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda, Berghuis, and the Ambiguous Right to Cut Off Police Questioning
    MIRANDA, BERGHUIS, AND THE AMBIGUOUS RIGHT TO CUT OFF POLICE QUESTIONING Laurent Sacharoff ABSTRACT Miranda v. Arizona requires police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. It also requires that if a suspect invokes his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, the police must terminate the interrogation. But the warnings do not tell the suspect he has the right to end the questioning, or how he may end it. Worse, despite a failure to explain the right, the Court in 2010 in Berghuis v. Thompkins, required that suspects invoke the right “unambiguously.” This requirement—that suspects invoke unambiguously a right they do not know exists—has created tremendous uncertainty in lower courts. These courts have no concrete standard against which to measure whether an assertion of the right was unambiguous. This article surveys the recent case law to show how a test that was supposed to simplify whether suspects had invoked their right by imposing an objective, plain meaning test has simply shifted the debate and confusion to what counts as “unambiguous.” I. INTRODUCTION The Court in Miranda v. Arizona1 required police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during any interrogation. But Miranda also created an important new right for suspects that scholars rarely discuss expressly: the right to cut off police questioning.2 Indeed, the Court in Miranda identified lengthy questioning as a chief culprit in creating a potentially coercive atmosphere, compounded by a suspect’s belief that the police will interrogate until he talks.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty on Extradition
    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13060 ________________________________________________________________________ EXTRADITION Treaty Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SOUTH AFRICA Signed at Washington September 16, 1999 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” SOUTH AFRICA Extradition Treaty signed at Washington September 16, 1999; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate May 18, 2000 (Treaty Doc. 106-24, 106th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 27, 2000 (Senate Executive Report No. 106-26, 106th Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate October 18, 2000; Ratified by the President December 23, 2000; Ratified by South Africa March 28, 2001; Ratifications exchanged at Pretoria June 25, 2001; Entered into force June 25, 2001. EXTRADmON TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 12-30353 02/03/2014 ID: 8962205 DktEntry: 21-1 Page: 1 of 9 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30353 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:08-cr-06033- WFN-1 KENNETH MAYNARD WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 27, 2013—Seattle, Washington Filed February 3, 2014 Before: M. Margaret McKeown and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge.* Opinion by Judge Rakoff * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Case: 12-30353 02/03/2014 ID: 8962205 DktEntry: 21-1 Page: 2 of 9 2 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS SUMMARY** Criminal Law Reversing and vacating the district court’s order revoking supervised release, and remanding for further proceedings, the panel held that a defendant’s Alford plea to a state charge is insufficient to prove commission of a state crime for purposes of a federal supervised release violation when the state itself does not treat it as sufficiently probative of the fact that the defendant actually committed the acts constituting the crime or crimes of conviction. COUNSEL Alison K. Guernsey (argued), Assistant Federal Defender of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant. Alexander C. Ekstrom (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorneys’ Office, Eastern District of Washington, Yakima, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    [Show full text]