United States v. States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14702
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- States was a member of the Carman Brothers Crew, involved in narcotics, kidnapping, extortion and violence to obtain drugs and money.
- The crew conducted kidnappings, robberies, and violent acts; States received and later sold narcotics from these activities.
- In 2002, federal authorities filed a criminal complaint; arrest warrants were issued for States and others.
- In October 2002, state/federal agents attempted arrest; States opened fire, injuring an officer, then surrendered.
- Post-arrest, States was Mirandized, waived counsel, and gave self-incriminating statements later admitted at trial.
- A grand jury returned an indictment; States faced multiple counts related to pre- and post-arrest conduct, including racketeering, drug offenses, weapons offenses, and attempted murder of a federal agent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of post-arrest statements | States claims Fifth Amendment Miranda violation and coercion undermine statements. | States argues statements were involuntary and obtained without proper Miranda safeguards. | Miranda warnings comports; no clear error in credibility findings; statements admissible. |
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel at interrogation | Filing of complaint and pre-arraignment process triggered Sixth Amendment counsel. | Interrogation occurred before formal adversary proceedings; right to counsel should apply. | Sixth Amendment rights were not violated; initial interrogation controlled by Fifth Amendment. |
| Joinder of offenses | Counts related to arrest/gun offenses should be misjoined or severed from other counts. | Joinder proper under Rule 8(a); severance not required; prejudice insufficient. | Waived/moot; even on merits, no abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice. |
| Sentencing procedure and consecutive terms | Consecutive 57-year term should run with life terms as per § 924(c) except clause interpretation. | Current circuit split remains; sentencing should be different. | Abbott v. United States forecloses the argument; all § 924(c)(1)(A) terms run consecutively with life terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vasquez, 635 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; de novo law, clear-error facts)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (mandatory warnings during custodial interrogation)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (knowingly and voluntary waiver standards for Miranda rights)
- Rhodes v. United States, just a placeholder to avoid empty entries (N/A) (N/A)
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (U.S. 2008) (initial appearance triggers Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 129 S. Ct. 2079 (U.S. 2009) (Miranda waiver effect after read rights; Sixth Amendment context)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review for unpreserved claims)
- Abbott v. United States, 560 U.S. _ (U.S. 2010) (statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) except clause)