HUSKA

v.

GARDNER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970)
  …omplied with the Miranda requirements. Having signed the written waiver form, without evidence to the contrary, he cannot now contend that he did not understand his rights. See Bell v. United States, 382 F. 2d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 965, 88 S. Ct. 1070,19 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1968). Foston argues that he received no warning that he had a right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. In addition, he claims that he did not know what the term “incriminating statement” meant as give…
• United States ex rel. Ruben Williams v. Twomey, 467 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1972)
  …omplied with the Miranda requirements. Having signed the written waiver form, without evidence to the contrary, he cannot now contend that he did not understand his rights. See Bell v. United States, 382 F. 2d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 965, 88 S.Ct. 1070, 19 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1968).” While the Johnson case does not set out the entire warning given there, the fair inference seems to be that the remainder of the statement complies with the Miranda requirements. Likewise here, as pointed ou…
• Eagan v. Duckworth, 843 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …with the Miranda requirements. Having signed the written waiver form, without evidence to the contrary, he cannot now contend that he did not understand his rights. See Bell v. United States, 382 F. 2d 985, 987 (9th Cir.1967), cert. denied, [*1567] 390 U.S. 965, 88 S.Ct. 1070, 19 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1968).” Id. at 1115-16 (emphasis added). The court obviously evaluated the Miranda warning utilizing the totality of the circumstances test, and we, too, should evaluate the sufficiency of the warnings given Eagan u…