United States v. Talmadge Hilton Ogle
1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10123 · 418 F.2d 238
November 7, 1969 · Docket 26346
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The court explained that Miranda’s warnings require full advisement of these rights before any questioning can lawfully proceed.
- Headnote 2
The opinion cited Gilpin and Venere for the principle that a valid waiver renders a subsequent confession admissible at trial.
- Headnote 3
The opinion held that the trial court’s determination that the warnings were given was not clearly erroneous, so appellate intervention was unwarranted.
- Headnote 4
Ogle argued that the FBI agent failed to give him full Miranda warnings. The court referred to the constitutional requirement that such warnings include the four components listed above before any interrogation can proceed.
- Headnote 5
The government introduced Ogle’s confession. The court held that because the warnings had been given, Ogle’s subsequent waiver was valid, making the confession admissible at trial.
- Headnote 6
Ogle contended the trial court erred in finding the warnings were proper. The appellate court held that the finding was not clearly erroneous, so the admission of the confession stands.
Opinion
Talmadge Hilton Ogle was indicted for the transportation of a motor vehicle from Laurel, Mississippi to Marengo County, Alabama, knowing it to have been stolen. A jury at Mobile deliberated eleven minutes before finding him guilty as charged. The government proved the offense by the testimony of the owner of the automobile, the defendant’s sister, and two Alabama officers. This evidence was never, in any respect, disputed.
The prosecutor proceeded, however, to introduce a confession given by the defendant to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The admissibility of this confession is the sole issue raised on this appeal.
In a hearing before the Court in chambers Ogle emphatically denied that the agent gave him full and complete Miranda warnings. The agent, subjected to careful questioning by the Court, testified to the contrary. The Court then found that the warnings were, in fact, given. Since we are unable to say that this finding was clearly erroneous appellate intervention on this score is not justified.
Appellant says, however, that he had an absolute right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation. In other words, he contends that no interrogation or subsequent confession can be valid under any circumstances unless in the presence of counsel.
One has only to read Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966) . to see that this contention is not well taken. Before an in-custody interrogation an accused must be fully advised of his right to counsel. When so advised he may thereafter voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive the right, Gilpin v. United States, 415 F.2d 638, 5 Cir., 1969; United States v. Venere, 416 F.2d 144, 5 Cir., 1969.
Affirmed.