finding waiver voluntary where “appellant was 30 years old, possessed an eleventh-grade education, and had been convicted twice before of serious felonies,” possessed “the maturity, education, and experience with the police to understand the waiver of his Miranda rights,” and the interview contained “no threats or any use of force that might render his statement involuntary”
How later courts described this case
- finding waiver voluntary where “appellant was 30 years old, possessed an eleventh-grade education, and had been convicted twice before of serious felonies,” possessed “the maturity, education, and experience with the police to understand the waiver of his Miranda rights,” and the interview contained “no threats or any use of force that might render his statement involuntary”
- holding that a statement was “clearly voluntary” where the defendant “was 30 years old, possessed an eleventh-grade education, and had been convicted twice before of serious felonies” and where law enforcement made “no threats” and used no force
- suggesting that counsel’s failure to introduce evidence sufficient to form an adequate basis for a legitimate standing claim was his own fault and served as a proper basis for a denial of standing
- telling defendant that if he cooperated, his arrest would be delayed so he could straighten out his personal affairs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MIKVA, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I adhere to my view, as stated in United States v. Johnson, 696 F.2d 115 (D.C.Cir.1982) (Mikva, J., dissenting in part), that violations of the plain language of a central provision in a wiretapping statute require suppression of the tainted evidence. In this case, however, the wiretap application was properly authorized by Assistant Attorney General Litvack, who had been specially designated under 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (1) (1976 & Supp. V 1981). Because the statutory requirements have been satisfied, I agree with the majority that the lack of diligence demonstrated by the Department of Justice in renewing Mr. Litvack’s special designation does not require suppression in this particular case.