United States v. Walter Marlin Webb

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Walter Marlin Webb

615 F.2d 828, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19960, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 1021

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 1980

Docket79-1519

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 F.2d 828 (United States v. Walter Marlin Webb) 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. Walter Marlin Webb, 615 F.2d 828, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19960, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 1021 (9th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

While being held prisoner and in solitary confinement at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, California, Webb told a security officer that he wanted to confess to another crime but that he wanted a minister present. After a short time Webb was escorted to the office of the security officer, who was present with the prison chaplain. Webb confessed to a murder on federal lands and was subsequently found guilty of the offense, the confession having been admitted into evidence. Webb claims the confession is privileged because it was a confidential communication to a clergyman. See Fed.R.Evid. 501; 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2394 (Chadbourn rev. 1970).

We do not reach the question whether the privilege for penitential . communications applies in federal proceedings. The obvious presence of the security officer destroyed the confidentiality that would be necessary to invoke the privilege even if we were to recognize it. To overcome this obstacle, Webb would have to establish that confidentiality is not required if a prisoner takes reasonable steps to insure it and, failing to do so, nevertheless utters the confession. We are cited to no authorities supporting such a rule, and even assuming it to be valid, no reasonable efforts to insure confidentiality were taken here.

There is no contention that the confession was involuntary.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

While being held prisoner and in solitary confinement at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, California, Webb told a security officer that he wanted to confess to another crime but that he wanted a minister present. After a short time Webb was escorted to the office of the security officer, who was present with the prison chaplain. Webb confessed to a murder on federal lands and was subsequently found guilty of the offense, the confession having been admitted into evidence. Webb claims the confession is privileged because it was a confidential communication to a clergyman. See Fed.R.Evid. 501; 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2394 (Chadbourn rev. 1970).

We do not reach the question whether the privilege for penitential . communications applies in federal proceedings. The obvious presence of the security officer destroyed the confidentiality that would be necessary to invoke the privilege even if we were to recognize it. To overcome this obstacle, Webb would have to establish that confidentiality is not required if a prisoner takes reasonable steps to insure it and, failing to do so, nevertheless utters the confession. We are cited to no authorities supporting such a rule, and even assuming it to be valid, no reasonable efforts to insure confidentiality were taken here.

There is no contention that the confession was involuntary.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F.2d 828, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19960, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walter-marlin-webb-ca9-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack