# United States v. James Braxton

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 6, 1997 · 112 F.3d 777

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490248

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 6, 1997
- **Citations:** 112 F.3d 777; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9999; 1997 WL 222813
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Michael
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Russell, Widener, Hall, Murnaghan, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Hamilton, Luttig, Williams, Michael, Motz
- **Cited by:** 139 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/9490248

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an investigatory inter- view was clearly non-custodial and that the confession was voluntary when the interview took place in the suspect’s mother’s home, the suspect freely consented to answer the officers’ questions, and the suspect was at liberty to terminate t…
- holding that an investigatory interview was clearly non-custodial and that the confession was voluntary when the interview took place in the suspect’s mother’s home, the suspect freely consented to answer the officers’ questions, and the suspect was at liberty to terminate the…
- recognizing that a law “enforcement officer may 21 properly tell the truth to the accused,” and that “[t]ruthful statements about [the defendant’s] predicament are not the type of ‘coercion’ that threatens to render a statement involuntary.”
- recognizing that a law “enforcement officer may properly tell the truth to the accused,” and that “[t]ruthful statements about [the defendant’s] 12 predicament are not the type of ‘coercion’ that threatens to render a statement involuntary.”

## Opinion text

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment because I do not believe that the totality of the circumstances reveals that Braxton’s will was overborne or that his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired. See United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1071 (4th Cir.1987).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490248. Public record. Not legal advice.