United States v. Roselia Flores-Calvillo

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Roselia Flores-Calvillo

571 F.2d 512, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1978

Docket75-3785

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 571 F.2d 512 (United States v. Roselia Flores-Calvillo) 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. Roselia Flores-Calvillo, 571 F.2d 512, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309 (9th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

The Government’s petition for rehearing is granted. The opinions heretofore filed are ordered withdrawn. Action upon the Government’s petition for rehearing was deferred until the decision of United States v. Rodriguez-Gastelum, 569 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. en banc 1978). The following per curiam opinion is substituted:

The conviction is vacated and the cause is remanded to the district court for the purpose of findings by the district court on the issues: (1) Did the Government carry its heavy burden of proving that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived her privilege against self-incrimination and her right to counsel, and (2) her right to silence? Within its discretion, the district court may decide both issues on the record heretofore made, or, it may order a further evidentiary hearing directed to those issues.

VACATED AND REMANDED,

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

The Government’s petition for rehearing is granted. The opinions heretofore filed are ordered withdrawn. Action upon the Government’s petition for rehearing was deferred until the decision of United States v. Rodriguez-Gastelum, 569 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. en banc 1978). The following per curiam opinion is substituted:

The conviction is vacated and the cause is remanded to the district court for the purpose of findings by the district court on the issues: (1) Did the Government carry its heavy burden of proving that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived her privilege against self-incrimination and her right to counsel, and (2) her right to silence? Within its discretion, the district court may decide both issues on the record heretofore made, or, it may order a further evidentiary hearing directed to those issues.

VACATED AND REMANDED,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F.2d 512, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roselia-flores-calvillo-ca9-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack