479 F. App'x 297
11th Cir.2012Background
- Barry was convicted of felony copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(a), (b)(1) and (2).
- Barry challenged three incriminating statements made to law enforcement as involuntary and argued Miranda warnings were not given.
- Barry also challenged the admissibility of prior similar acts evidence under Rule 404(b).
- The district court denied suppression, finding the interviews non-custodial and the statements voluntary.
- The district court also admitted the prior-act evidence, applying a three-prong Rule 404(b) test.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, upholding both the suppression ruling and the 404(b) ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barry's statements were involuntary | Barry argues custodial coercion and lack of Miranda. | Barry contends police presence and intimidation rendered statements involuntary. | No; statements voluntary and non-custodial. |
| Whether prior 404(b) evidence was admissible | Prior 2004 encounter is remote and unfairly prejudicial. | Evidence is probative of intent and similar to charged offenses. | No plain error; evidence admissible under Rule 404(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009) (mixed questions of law and fact; review standards)
- United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (Miranda custodial interrogation rule)
- United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (custody factors; objective standard)
- United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2006) (custody assessment factors; weapon presence)
- United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (totality of circumstances; voluntariness standard)
- United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
- United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 1995) (intent issue; admissibility of 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2001) (same-intent requirement for extrinsic act evidence)
- United States v. Lampley, 68 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 1995) (remoteness of prior acts; admissibility scope)
- United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2006) (Rule 404(b) admissibility; inclusion principle)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error review standard)