United States v. Patrick Cummiskey
This text of 745 F.2d 278 (United States v. Patrick Cummiskey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
745 F.2d 278, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patrick-cummiskey-ca3-1984.