TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert James Poole

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Robert James POOLE, Respondent/Appellant

United States v. Poole, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986)
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
December 17, 1986
Docket
No. CA 84-5195
Judges
Skopil, Canby, Solomon
Citations
806 F.2d 8531986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34924

Opinion

ORDER The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The panel has voted to amend the opinion as follows. Delete the body of the section entitled “A. Standard of Review” on page 7 of the slip opinion, and substitute the following:

The determination whether a defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation is essentially factual, and is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 , 105 S.Ct. 101 , 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984));

United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343, 1348 (9th Cir.1985).

In the first line of page 11 of the slip opinion, delete the words “then applicable.”

In the middle paragraph of page 11, change the next-to-last sentence to read: “We conclude that the district court clearly erred in ruling that the questioning about name, date of birth and place of birth did not constitute interrogation.”

Add a citation to United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir.1986), on page 8, six lines from the bottom, after “see also ”

and before the citation to United States v. Booth.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion of rehearing en banc, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted against it. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1987: 21988: 21989: 21990: 21991: 11992: 11993: 31994: 31995: 12017: 119872026peak 1993 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Joseph William Kipp2 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1993)
  2. Layton City v. Aragon813 P.2d 1213 (Utah Ct. App. 1991)
  3. United States v. Arturo Gonzalez-Sandoval894 F.2d 1043 (9th Cir. 1990)
  4. United States v. Frank L. Fazio914 F.2d 950 (7th Cir. 1990)
  5. United States v. Billy Lee Jorgensen871 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1989)
  6. United States v. James Oliver Hocking860 F.2d 769 (7th Cir. 1988)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Brigido Zapien861 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2017)
  2. Stewart v. United States668 A.2d 857 (D.C. 1995)
  3. Arnett v. Lewis870 F. Supp. 1514 (D. Ariz. 1994)
  4. United States v. Bentley30 F.3d 140 (9th Cir. 1994)
  5. United States v. Jimmie Jones21 F.3d 165 (7th Cir. 1994)
  6. United States v. Jose Amador-Galvan, AKA Jose Amador Pullido-Villarreal, United States of America v. Rodolfo Molina, Jr.9 F.3d 1414 (9th Cir. 1993)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) 1,488
United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985) 87
United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1985) 40
United States v. Combs, 762 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) 26

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