Defendant's Rights Not Violated by Placing Informant in Cell
US v. Cook, -- F.3d --, 2010 WL 1268529 (10th Cir. 4/5/10)
In interlocutory government appeal, the court reverses the district court's suppression of statements made to a jail-house informant.
The government notice of appeal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of district court order denying motion for reconsideration. Although that motion seemed to be merely a request for clarification of the wording of the district court's order, the government argued two issues which would have resulted in reversal if the court ruled in the government's favor and so it postponed the running of the time for appeal.
Mr. Cook declined to talk with sheriff's office investigators regarding the death of a cellmate and invoked his right to counsel. Subsequently, there was a staged "reclassification day" that resulted in placement of a cooperating informant in the cell with Cook, who admitted to the informant his participation with other inmates in murder of former cellmate. Cook argued that after he invoked his Miranda rights, the government improperly reinitiated contact by arranging for the cooperating witness to talk about the murder. The Court decides that Cook's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because he was completely unaware that he was in the presence of a government agent and so was not confronted with the police domination inherent in a custodial interrogation setting.
In interlocutory government appeal, the court reverses the district court's suppression of statements made to a jail-house informant.
The government notice of appeal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of district court order denying motion for reconsideration. Although that motion seemed to be merely a request for clarification of the wording of the district court's order, the government argued two issues which would have resulted in reversal if the court ruled in the government's favor and so it postponed the running of the time for appeal.
Mr. Cook declined to talk with sheriff's office investigators regarding the death of a cellmate and invoked his right to counsel. Subsequently, there was a staged "reclassification day" that resulted in placement of a cooperating informant in the cell with Cook, who admitted to the informant his participation with other inmates in murder of former cellmate. Cook argued that after he invoked his Miranda rights, the government improperly reinitiated contact by arranging for the cooperating witness to talk about the murder. The Court decides that Cook's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because he was completely unaware that he was in the presence of a government agent and so was not confronted with the police domination inherent in a custodial interrogation setting.
posted by Anonymous at 2:28 PM
<< Home