UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT ALVIN ADKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 inculpatory statements made by the appellant were voluntarily made and admissible.
Appellant was convicted of possessing a draft card not issued to him with intent to use it for false identification. He argued that his inculpatory st…
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 Involuntary Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of violating Title 50 App., U.S.C.A. § 462, possession of a selective service registration certificate (draft card), which had not been issued to him, with the intent that it be used for false identification.1 The sole assignment of error is that certain inculpatory statements made by appellant to a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were involun tarily made. This question involves alleged coercion as well as a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights due appellant under Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
The district court did not err in admitting the statements. The evidence as to claimed coercion is such as not to require a contrary ruling, and the Miranda claim is frivolous. There are no facts whatever to support appellant’s contention that his Miranda rights were violated.
Affirmed.
. We dispose of this ease on the briefs and record, without oral agument, as provided by our Local Rule 18.