TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert Camacho v. United States

Robert CAMACHO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Camacho v. United States, 392 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 15, 1968
Docket
No. 21736_1
Judges
Hamlin, Duniway, Boldt
Citations
392 F.2d 5751968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8407

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

In the argument on appeal, counsel agreed that other than the citation of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , there is nothing in the record before this court showing either the facts found or the legal basis for the suppression ruling in the order of the district court dated September 27, 1966.

In order to properly determine questions presented on this appeal, the record on appeal should be supplemented by a statement of the specific facts found by the district court and the particular concept of Miranda applied to the facts found in the suppression ruling referred to.

*576 The cause is remanded for the district court to make and file as part of the record on appeal a statement of the specific facts found upon the evidence and record presented in the suppression hearing and the particular principles of law applied thereto in the suppression ruling. The statement of the district court should include findings: whether warnings of appellant’s constitutional rights were given to him, and, if so, the time, maker and content of each such warning; all statements of and to appellant considered pertinent to the suppression ruling; whether appellant requested counsel and, if so, the time and content of each such request and to whom it was made. The fact findings should be stated in the sequence and context in which they occurred.

It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 11969: 11971: 11983: 11992: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Christopher Williams951 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
  2. United States v. Claude K. West723 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  3. State v. Monteer467 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. 1971)
  4. United States v. Gerald Leroy Read411 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1969)
  5. Lonnie E. Johnson v. United States390 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1968)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Christopher Williams951 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
  2. United States v. Claude K. West723 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
  3. State v. Monteer467 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. 1971)
  4. United States v. Gerald Leroy Read411 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1969)
  5. Lonnie E. Johnson v. United States390 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 50,292

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list