U.S. v. HENERY, 1:14-cr-00088-BLW. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Idaho
Number: infdco20150116h49
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge. The Court has before it Defendant Henery's Motion to Suppress Defendant Jonathan Lynn Henery's Statements (Dkt. 64), and Defendant Hansen's Motion to Suppress Statements Made (Dkt. 66). The Government responded to the motions by indicating that it does not intend to offer either Hansen's statements or Henery's statements at trial in its case-in-chief. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions, and preclude the Government from using the defendant
Summary: ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge. The Court has before it Defendant Henery's Motion to Suppress Defendant Jonathan Lynn Henery's Statements (Dkt. 64), and Defendant Hansen's Motion to Suppress Statements Made (Dkt. 66). The Government responded to the motions by indicating that it does not intend to offer either Hansen's statements or Henery's statements at trial in its case-in-chief. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions, and preclude the Government from using the defendants..
More
ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendant Henery's Motion to Suppress Defendant Jonathan Lynn Henery's Statements (Dkt. 64), and Defendant Hansen's Motion to Suppress Statements Made (Dkt. 66). The Government responded to the motions by indicating that it does not intend to offer either Hansen's statements or Henery's statements at trial in its case-in-chief. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions, and preclude the Government from using the defendants' statements in its case-in-chief.
The Government reserved its right to use the statements to impeach the defendants if they testify at trial. It has been this Court's practice to follow Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that a defendant's voluntary statement, even if obtained in violation of Miranda, is admissible as impeachment evidence. U.S. v. Gomez, 725 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985). If the defendants intend to argue a different position, defense counsel should contact the Court's staff to determine a short briefing schedule to address the matter before trial.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant Henery's Motion to Suppress Defendant Jonathan Lynn Henery's Statements (Dkt. 64) is GRANTED as explained above.
2. Defendant Hansen's Motion to Suppress Statements Made (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED as explained above.
Source: Leagle
