# United States v. John T. Robinson

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 4, 1983 · 698 F.2d 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470205

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. John T. ROBINSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 4, 1983
- **Citations:** 698 F.2d 448; 225 U.S. App. D.C. 282; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27891
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mikva
- **Judges:** Wright, Mikva, Edwards
- **Cited by:** 90 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/9470205

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470205. Public record. Not legal advice.