United States v. Satterfield

S.D. New York

United States v. Satterfield

417 F. Supp. 303

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 22, 1976

Docket76 Cr. 376

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 417 F. Supp. 303 (United States v. Satterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Satterfield, 417 F. Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

On reargument the government has asked us to reconsider findings # 1 and # 2 to the extent that they indicate that Satterfield’s emotional condition at D. E. A. headquarters was such as to prevent him from comprehending or intelligently waiving his rights. As is readily apparent from the opinion, our attention was not primarily focused on the events of Friday, April 16, but on Monday, April 19. Having reviewed the record concerning Friday’s events, we have come to the conclusion that our original view of them was incorrect. To be sure, the defendant was under emotional stress and—by crying and whimpering—demonstrated that stress more than most people who have been arrested. However, his conduct, as revealed by the agents’ testimony as well as his own, would not appear to be that of a man who did not comprehend the meaning of what was being said or of his own responses thereto.

Accordingly, findings # 1 and # 2 are modified simply to establish that Miranda warnings were given and that the agents advised Satterfield of the indictment. It follows that finding # 3 is modified simply to indicate that the warnings and information about the indictment were repeated by the Assistant United States Attorney. No further modification of the original decision is required, since all three statements will be suppressed for the reason stated under the heading “discussion”.

The government’s motion is granted to the extent indicated above and is in all other respects denied.

SO ORDERED.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

On reargument the government has asked us to reconsider findings # 1 and # 2 to the extent that they indicate that Satterfield’s emotional condition at D. E. A. headquarters was such as to prevent him from comprehending or intelligently waiving his rights. As is readily apparent from the opinion, our attention was not primarily focused on the events of Friday, April 16, but on Monday, April 19. Having reviewed the record concerning Friday’s events, we have come to the conclusion that our original view of them was incorrect. To be sure, the defendant was under emotional stress and—by crying and whimpering—demonstrated that stress more than most people who have been arrested. However, his conduct, as revealed by the agents’ testimony as well as his own, would not appear to be that of a man who did not comprehend the meaning of what was being said or of his own responses thereto.

Accordingly, findings # 1 and # 2 are modified simply to establish that Miranda warnings were given and that the agents advised Satterfield of the indictment. It follows that finding # 3 is modified simply to indicate that the warnings and information about the indictment were repeated by the Assistant United States Attorney. No further modification of the original decision is required, since all three statements will be suppressed for the reason stated under the heading “discussion”.

The government’s motion is granted to the extent indicated above and is in all other respects denied.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. Supp. 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-satterfield-nysd-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack