Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States v. Paul C. Porter

United States v. Paul C. Porter, 776 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1985)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-10-31
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • if it is unclear from defendant’s words and conduct whether he wishes a lawyer, questioning officers must determine his desire before resuming investigative questioning.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Paul C. Porter. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
22 opinions
UNITED STATES, v. PORTER,776 F.2d 370(1st Cir. 1985)
UNITED STATES, APPELLEE, v. PAUL C. PORTER, DEFENDANT, APPELLANT.
No. 83-1791.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 31, 1985.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, COFFIN, BOWNES, BREYER, TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and PEREZ-GIMENEZ,fn*District Judge.
[1] ORDER OF COURT
[2] We do not consider this opinion to announce a per se rule. Rather, we need only say, as several other circuits have said, that where the accused's words and actions are ambiguous as to whether he wishes a lawyer (at least as ambiguous as in the present case), the questioning officers must find out more specifically whether he wants a lawyer before they can proceed further with other questioning. On the record before us, we deem the questioning impermissible even under a standard that restricts further questioning to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel.See, e.g., United States v. Cherry,733 F.2d 1124,1130-31(5th Cir. 1984) (citingThompson v. Wainwright,601 F.2d 768,772(5th Cir. 1979) andNash v. Estelle,597 F.2d 513,517(5th Cir. 1979) (en banc);United States v. Riggs,537 F.2d 1219,1222(4th Cir. 1976);United States v. Prestigiacomo,504 F. Supp. 681,683(E.D.N.Y. 1981);United States v. Grullon,496 F. Supp. 991,997(E.D.Pa. 1979).

[3] This order in no way changes Chief Judge Campbell's concurring Dubitante.

[4] The petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are denied.
  1. Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation. ↩