SCOTT NICHOLAS ERRICO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the denial of the appellant's motion to suppress or in the admission of certain statements made by the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated during his interrogation or while awaiting trial.
No, the appellate court found no error in the denial of the motion to suppress and no violation of the appellant's Sixth Amendment rights regarding statements made to a codefendant or during voir dire.
[1] A motion to suppress evidence obtained during interrogation is properly denied when the record reveals no error in the denial.
[2] Statements made by a defendant to a codefendant while held in adjacent cells awaiting trial are admissible when there is no evidence of advance arrangement with authoriti…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Upon a review of the record, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the suppression of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody and questioned by authorities in London. He later made statements to a codefendant while held in…
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 Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. In London the appellant, a United States citizen, was taken into custody and questioned by airport authorities and Scotland Yard detectives. He contends that several of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the course of his interrogation. Upon a review of the record, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. United States v. Mitro, 880 F. 2d 1480 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F. 2d 1214, opinion modified, 801 F. 2d 378 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919, 107 S.Ct. 1377, 94 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987); United States v. Martindale, 790 F. 2d 1129 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 855, 107 S.Ct. 193, 93 L.Ed.2d 125 (1986); United States v. Covington, 783 F. 2d 1052 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 831, 107 S.Ct. 117, 93 L.Ed.2d 64 (1986); United States v. Morrow, 537 F. 2d 120, reh’g. denied, 541 F. 2d 282 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); United States v. Molina-Chacon, 627 F.Supp. 1253 (E.D.N.Y.1986).
We also find no error in the admission of evidence concerning appellant’s statements made to a codefendant during the time they were held in nearby cells while awaiting trial. There is no evidence of any advance arrangement between the authorities and the codefendant or of any state action designed to elicit incriminating statements from appellant. See Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). Even though he questioned the “coincidence” of his being placed in the same maximum security “pod,” as his code-fendant, the appellant has not demonstrated a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as set forth in Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) and United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Additionally, we find no violation of appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights during voir dire. Sanchez-Velasco v. State, 570 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2045, 114 L.Ed.2d 129 (1991).
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ and MOE, LEROY H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (19 total)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1986)
- United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1980)
- Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 537 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Stoll v. United States, 430 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1977)
- Gruba v. Washington, 430 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1977)
- Grand River Dam Auth. v. Grand-Hydro, 335 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1948)
- Fowler v. City of Louisville, 480 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1987)
- Gluklick v. United States, 480 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1987)