United States v. Murdock
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23948
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Murdock, a convicted felon in possession of firearms, was sentenced under ACCA to 216 months.
- He challenged three district court rulings: suppression of a statement about a bag's color, admission of a telephone-call recording, and ACCA sentencing.
- Officers searched a residence and a trailer under bail conditions restricting firearms and required searches of home/person.
- A red bag with two handguns was found in a car trunk; Murdock disputed the bag color during custody on a small lawn.
- The district court denied suppression, admitted the audio recording, and held that ACCA applied; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statement about bag color was admissible under Miranda | Murdock was in custody and unwarned | Not in custody; Miranda not triggered | Not in custody; statement admissible |
| Whether the firearm-related audio call was properly authenticated | Voice identity insufficient without corroboration | Contents of call support authentication | Authentication sufficient; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether ACCA predicate convictions were proven by preponderance | Identity issues cast doubt on convictions | Record-supported same person; credible documents | District court’s ACCA finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court properly weighed circumstantial evidence for ACCA applicability | Documents show mismatch in name spelling | Minor spelling differences do not defeat identity; scrivener error explained | Plausible reading that Murdock is the sameindividual; ACCA applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Crooker, 688 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (Miranda custody analysis; evidence review standard)
- Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (custody analysis factors for Miranda rights)
- Hughes, 640 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. 2011) (no custody where ambiance is relaxed; multiple officers present)
- Teemer, 394 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2005) (custody factors in interrogation context)
- Diaz, 519 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008) (ACCA burden of proof de novo review; preponderance standard for prior conv.)
- McKenzie, 539 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008) (evidence may be certified copies; prior convictions shown by records)
- Sumrall, 690 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2012) (records may prove prior convictions for ACCA)
- Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229 (1st Cir. 1987) (circumstantial authentication of conversations allowed)