United States v. Robert James Poole

806 F.2d 853, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34924
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 17, 1986
DocketCA 84-5195
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 806 F.2d 853 (United States v. Robert James Poole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Robert James Poole, 806 F.2d 853, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34924 (9th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The panel has voted to amend the opinion as follows. Delete the body of the section entitled “A. Standard of Review” on page 7 of the slip opinion, and substitute the following:

The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard. United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984)); United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343, 1348 (9th Cir.1985).

In the first line of page 11 of the slip opinion, delete the words “then applicable.”

In the middle paragraph of page 11, change the next-to-last sentence to read: “We conclude that the district court clearly erred in ruling that the questioning about name, date of birth and place of birth did not constitute interrogation.”

Add a citation to United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir.1986), on page 8, six lines from the bottom, after “see also ” and before the citation to United States v. Booth.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion of rehearing en banc, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted against it. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

Related

United States v. Brigido Zapien
861 F.3d 971 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Stewart v. United States
668 A.2d 857 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1995)
Arnett v. Lewis
870 F. Supp. 1514 (D. Arizona, 1994)
United States v. Bentley
30 F.3d 140 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Jimmie Jones
21 F.3d 165 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Joseph William Kipp
2 F.3d 1158 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Robert A. Levy
955 F.2d 1098 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
Layton City v. Aragon
813 P.2d 1213 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1991)
United States v. Frank L. Fazio
914 F.2d 950 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Arturo Gonzalez-Sandoval
894 F.2d 1043 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
State v. Flower
778 P.2d 1179 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1989)
United States v. Billy Lee Jorgensen
871 F.2d 725 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. James Oliver Hocking
860 F.2d 769 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Pierre Fouche
833 F.2d 1284 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Franklin Neil Brady
819 F.2d 884 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
806 F.2d 853, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-james-poole-ca9-1986.