United States v. Patrick Cummiskey

745 F.2d 278, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17851
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided October 9, 1984·No. 84-1348·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is before us following our remand in United States v. Cummiskey, 728 F.2d 200 (3d Cir.1984), to determine whether or not Miranda warnings had been given to Patrick Cummiskey prior to his assertion of the right to remain silent at the time of his arrest. In Cummiskey we held that the prosecutor could properly *279 comment at trial on defendant’s post-arrest silence only if the government proved that Miranda warnings were not given. The district court found that Miranda warnings had not been given at the relevant time, and reinstated the judgment of sentence. That finding is not challenged as clearly erroneous, and our prior decision requires an affirmance of the judgment. Cummiskey contends that this court misconstrued the holding in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), but concedes that our prior ruling is law of the case, which can be corrected only by this court sitting in banc or by the Supreme Court on certiorari. The judgment appealed from will, therefore, be affirmed.

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

United States v. Patrick Cummiskey, 745 F.2d 278, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17851 (3d Cir. 1984).

745 F.2d 278 (United States v. Patrick Cummiskey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Karla Foster
995 F.2d 882 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
State v. Rogers
512 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987)