JEROME WALLACE PILARSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's rights were not violated by the denial of counsel or the search and seizure of evidence.
The defendant was convicted under the Dyer Act. He moved to suppress evidence obtained during interrogation and examination of his car, arguing violat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a conviction under the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. In connection with the trial commencing on February 2, 1966, Pilarski, tried too early to have the benefit of Miranda safeguards,1 pressed strongly Escobedo rights.2 At the pretrial hearing on Pilarski’s motion to suppress alleged incriminating evidence obtained by local police officials and an agent of the F.B.I. during interrogation of Pilarski and examination of the interior of the automobile at a Miami filling station, the District Court overruled contentions that such evidence was obtained in derogation of Pilarski’s Escobedo right to counsel, or by illegal search and seizure. These contentions are now reasserted on this appeal.
Despite the resourceful, diligent effort of court-appointed counsel through extensive briefs and vigorous argument before the Court, we can find no error. Whether on waiver as the Trial Judge found or on the purely investigative nature of the interrogation at a time when there was no known but unsolved crime, cf. Myricks v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 370 F. 2d 901, he was not denied counsel. As to the search, waiver and consent in escapably turned on credibility choices the Court was entitled to make. None of Pilarski’s other contentions deserve mention.
Affirmed.
. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, is available only to litigants whose trials began subsequent to the date of that decision, June 13, 1966. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.
. Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 85 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Myricks v. United States, 370 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1967)