United States v. Billy Ray Russell

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Billy Ray Russell

468 F.2d 618, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6993

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

Docket72-2162

StatusPublished

This text of 468 F.2d 618 (United States v. Billy Ray Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Billy Ray Russell, 468 F.2d 618, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6993 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of stealing government property having a value in excess of $100.00. 18 U.S.C.A. § 641. His assignments of error center on alleged violations of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and alleged procedural errors in the determination of his Miranda rights by the district court. We find no violation of Miranda. We find no departure from the procedural requirements of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), nor other procedural error in the assessment by the district court of appellant’s Miranda rights. There was no error in the test applied by the court to determine the voluntariness vel non of the confession. Moreover, the failure to charge in the literal language of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501(a) as it applies to the weight to be given by the jury to a confession, was not error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of stealing government property having a value in excess of $100.00. 18 U.S.C.A. § 641. His assignments of error center on alleged violations of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and alleged procedural errors in the determination of his Miranda rights by the district court. We find no violation of Miranda. We find no departure from the procedural requirements of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), nor other procedural error in the assessment by the district court of appellant’s Miranda rights. There was no error in the test applied by the court to determine the voluntariness vel non of the confession. Moreover, the failure to charge in the literal language of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501(a) as it applies to the weight to be given by the jury to a confession, was not error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 618, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-billy-ray-russell-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack