# United States v. Robert James Poole

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 17, 1986 · 794 F.2d 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475037

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James POOLE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 17, 1986
- **Citations:** 794 F.2d 462
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Skopil
- **Judges:** Canby, Skopil, Solomon
- **Cited by:** 59 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Modified on other grounds by United States v. Robert James Poole, 806 F.2d 853 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475037

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, absent factual dispute, totality test "requires us to 'consider legal concepts in the mix of fact and law and to exercise judgment about the values' underlying the Miranda rule and the fifth amendment"
- affirming the exclusion of expert eyewitness-identification testimony on the grounds that “the court believed that general testimony, not tied to the specific testimony in the case, would not be helpful to the jury”
- noting that the district court properly excluded statements made by a defendant where he was shown surveillance photographs after invoking his right to silence
- holding that showing a suspected bank robber surveillance photos is interrogation

## Opinion text

SKOPIL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The district court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant Poole gave a false name to an FBI agent. The district court’s judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
I cannot agree with the majority that the government obtained the false name testimony in violation of Poole’s rights under the fifth amendment. I agree with the district court’s conclusion that the questions by the FBI to Poole regarding Poole’s name, and date and place of birth did not constitute an interrogation.
The police are generally under an obligation to inquire about an individual’s identity, both for the protection of the individual and the police. This case is indistinguishable from United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1238 (9th Cir.1981), wherein we concluded these same questions, asked under similar investigatory circumstances, were “routine, noninvestigatory ... [and] totally unrelated to the crime____” That the questions in this case were asked at the close of an interrogation, rather than at some other time during the arrest or investigation of the crime, is irrelevant. There is no indication in the record that the question to Poole regarding his name was likely to elicit an incriminating response. See id. “If an [FBI] investigator has no reason to suspect that the question asked is likely to elicit an incriminating response, there is no interrogation and, therefore, no Miranda violation.” United States v. Mata-Abun-dis, 717 F.2d 1277, 1279-80 (9th Cir.1983).
Because I would uphold the district court’s decision to admit this evidence, and therefore uphold the judgment of conviction, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475037. Public record. Not legal advice.