# United States v. Linda Sue Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 25, 1972 · 459 F.2d 319

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458106

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda Sue BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 25, 1972
- **Citations:** 459 F.2d 319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Coleman, Simpson, Roney
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458106

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Appellant urges that her written confession should not have been admitted into evidence because it was obtained in violation of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966):
“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.”
The record of this case shows that the defendant did not indicate in any manner that she wished the questioning to cease. To the contrary, there was testimony both at trial and at the hearing on the motion to suppress that the defendant affirmatively expressed a desire to tell her story to the FBI agents. Under these circumstances, the Miranda rule was not violated and the trial court was correct in admitting defendant’s statement into evidence.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458106. Public record. Not legal advice.