United States v. Powell
628 F.3d 1254
11th Cir.2010Background
- Powell and Thompson were convicted at trial of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and marijuana.
- Powell independently moved to suppress post-arrest statements on Miranda/uncounseled interrogation grounds.
- A magistrate judge held Powell was questioned after he requested counsel and recommended suppression.
- The district court rejected the magistrate judge’s credibility findings and denied suppression without holding a new live hearing.
- Trial evidence included post-arrest statements; the government later presented additional testimony at trial.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacated Powell’s conviction and remanded for new proceedings, while affirming Thompson’s conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by rejecting the magistrate judge’s credibility findings without a new hearing | Powell argues for rehearing to assess credibility. | Powell contends the district court should rehear live testimony. | Remand for live hearing on credibility and suppression issue. |
| Whether the denial of suppression implies a due-process violation given the magistrate’s credibility | Powell asserts improper reliance on credibly disputed facts. | Thompson's case not implicated by suppression issue. | Remand directed to determine if Powell requested counsel and related matters. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in substituting its own credibility determinations | Powell contends district court rejected magistrate findings without hearing live testimony. | The district court can review magistrate findings if properly supported by record. | Precedent requires live rehearing; remand to conduct new hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (due process when adopting magistrate findings without new hearing)
- United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court must de novo review disputed portions of magistrate report)
- United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2007) (mixed question of law and fact; standard of review on suppression)
- Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105 (5th Cir. 1980) (credibility requires observing witnesses; live testimony recommended)
- Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court must hear live testimony to assess credibility)
- United States v. Marshall, 609 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1980) (additional trial testimony cannot cure earlier suppression ruling)