United States v. Cobenais, 0:23-cr-00296

Jerald Robert Cobenais was charged with one count of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of sexual abuse under federal statutes based on alleged conduct on tribal land.
The government and Cobenais both filed several pretrial motions, including discovery and suppression motions.
The defense moved to suppress statements made by Cobenais during a July 7, 2023 interview at his place of employment, arguing a Miranda violation.
Law enforcement interviewed Cobenais in his workplace breakroom, informing him he was not under arrest and could end the interview at any time.
The interview was recorded, lasted approximately 89 minutes, and concluded without Cobenais being detained or arrested; he voluntarily acquiesced to the officers' requests.
The magistrate judge issued orders on all discovery-related motions and recommended denial of the motion to suppress, finding Cobenais was not in custody for Miranda purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pretrial Disclosure (Discovery Motions)	Government is entitled to reciprocal discovery; seeks timely disclosures	Seeks timely government disclosures, including 404(b) and Brady materials	Motions for reciprocal discovery, 404(b), Brady disclosure GRANTED; Jencks Act early disclosure DENIED
Retention of Rough Notes and Evidence	Not opposed	Requests retention of notes/evidence for possible later review	Granted (retention only; no production unless separately moved)
Suppression of Defendant's Statements (Miranda Issue)	Cobenais was not in custody; Miranda warnings not required	Interview was custodial or became custodial; his ambiguous reference to a lawyer was invocation of rights	Motion to suppress DENIED; interview was non-custodial, invocation was ambiguous

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (an ambiguous request for counsel does not require questioning to cease)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (right to cut off questioning must be scrupulously honored, but invocation must be clear)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (Miranda custody determination depends on whether a reasonable person would feel free to end questioning)
United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822 (being clearly told you are free to leave weighs heavily against custody finding)
United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135 (reiterates weight of explicit advisement of freedom to leave)