Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Emanuel Pea v. United States

324 F.2d 442

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1963-11-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree murder and assault with a dangerous weapon. A detective questioned him and got a confession while he was under arrest and lying wounded in a hospital. In keeping with the spirit of Rule 5(b), F.R.Crim.P., we might have expected that the detective would have warned him of his right to remain silent. The record does not show whether the detective did so.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
14 opinions
PEA v. UNITED STATES,324 F.2d 442(D.C. Cir. 1963)
Emanuel PEA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17824.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued September 24, 1963.
Decided October 10, 1963.
Petition for Rehearing Denied November 5, 1963.
Mr. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., Washington, D.C. (appointed by the District Court), for appellant.

Mr. Jerome Nelson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and DANAHER and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree murder and assault with a dangerous weapon. A detective questioned him and got a confession while he was under arrest and lying wounded in a hospital. In keeping with the spirit of Rule5(b), F.R.Crim.P., we might have expected that the detective would have warned him of his right to remain silent. The record does not show whether the detective did so. It does not show that either the prosecution or the defense "sought to ventilate the issue."Page 443In these circumstances we cannot reverse. Hawkins v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 341-342,288 F.2d 122,125-126(1960) (concurring opinion).

Affirmed.