United States v. Prabhu Ramamoorthy, 949 F.3d 955

Defendant Prabhu Ramamoorthy sat between his wife and a sleeping passenger ("Laura") on a redeye flight; Laura awoke to find Ramamoorthy inserting or attempting to insert his fingers into her vagina and reported it to flight attendants.
Airport police met Ramamoorthy on the jetway, questioned him in public areas (jetway/terminal), and he made verbal and a written statement before arrest.
After arrest, FBI agents read a written Miranda form at the airport police station; Ramamoorthy read rights aloud, discussed them for ~10 minutes, initialed and signed the form, and then admitted attempting penetration.
A grand jury charged one count of sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2), alleging both attempted and completed sexual abuse; jury convicted and district court sentenced to 108 months.
On appeal Ramamoorthy raised three principal claims: (1) indictment duplicitous / jury unanimity violation, (2) statements to airport police should be suppressed for lack of Miranda warning, and (3) FBI statements should be suppressed for an invalid Miranda waiver. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ramamoorthy)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
1. Duplicitous indictment / jury unanimity	Indictment charged both attempted and completed sexual abuse in one count, risking non-unanimous verdict because attempt and completion are distinct (specific vs. general intent).	The charged statutory definition of "sexual act" required specific intent (penetration with intent to arouse/abuse), so attempt is a lesser-included offense; no duplicity or unanimity problem.	No duplicity; attempt is a lesser-included offense here and jury instructions properly distinguished elements. Affirmed.
2. Suppression of jetway/terminal statements (Miranda)	Officers questioned him in custody without Miranda warnings; those un-Mirandized statements should be excluded.	Defendant failed to move to suppress pretrial; factual record is disputed and appellate court should not resolve custody facts in first instance.	Forfeited claim: court declines plain-error review because resolution would require factfinding best done below. No relief.
3. Suppression of FBI statements (valid waiver)	Even after warnings, defendant did not knowingly/intelligently waive Miranda due to limited English and cultural beliefs about Indian legal system.	Agents provided written warnings, had defendant read and initial each right, answered questions; no indication defendant misunderstood.	District court did not clearly err; waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Motion to suppress properly denied.

United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (duplicitous-indictment and jury-unanimity principles)
United States v. Barcus, 892 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2018) (statutory "sexual act" requiring specific intent)
United States v. Bradley, 917 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2019) (lesser-included-offense elements analysis)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody inquiry for Miranda purposes)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (standards for voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2010) (Miranda waiver analysis under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Swanson, 341 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2003) (factors for determining custody under Miranda)