UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
IRENE RUBIO GARCIA, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona must be excluded, compelling reversal of the conviction.
Defendant Garcia was arrested and repeatedly questioned by federal agents who gave her several inconsistent versions of Miranda warnings. None of the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Miranda Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Garcia appeals from a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 174. Error in admitting Garcia’s inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, compels reversal of her conviction and a remand for a new trial from which those statements will be excluded.
After Garcia was arrested, federal agents repeatedly questioned her. During the course of the interrogation sessions, the agents gave her several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings. On no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. Taken together, the warnings were inconsistent. At one point she was told that she had a right to the presence of counsel “when she answered any questions”; on another, she was told that she could “have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court.”
The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. “[T]he offer of counsel must be clarion and firm, not one of mere impressionism.” Lathers v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 396 F. 2d 524, 535. (Accord, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez (9th Cir. 1968) 400 F. 2d 593; Gilpin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 415 F. 2d 638.)
Discussion of the remaining contentions is rendered unnecessary by our disposition of the Miranda issue.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Cribbs v. State, 378 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
-
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1981)
-
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Gilpin v. United States, 415 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Ascencion Vasquez-Lopez, 400 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1968)