# 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/9490249

## 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:** Dissent by Hall
- **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/9490249

## 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

K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I join Judge Mumaghan’s dissent. I write separately only to emphasize that, in my view, the trooper’s “come clean or you’ll get five years” threat/promise was plainly false. Braxton had no obligation to say a single word to the authorities, let alone to “come clean,” and he could not have been punished for it had he silently shown his inquisitors to the door.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490249. Public record. Not legal advice.