MERKOW

v.

LAWN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Citator

Cited By

• Syvasky Lafayette Poyner v. Murray, 964 F.2d 1404 (4th Cir. 1992)
  …nsel any time the word falls from his lips. Jardina’s statements and actions did not invoke any present right to counsel.” Jardina, 747 F. 2d at 949 (citations omitted); see also Norman v. Ducharme, 871 F. 2d 1483, 1486 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 1483, 108 L.Ed.2d 619 (1990). Poyner’s statement seeking clarification of his right to an attorney was even less suggestive of a present intention to speak with an attorney than were the statements in Jardina. We find the reasoning of Ja…
• First Union Disc. Brokerage Servs., Inc. v. Milos, 997 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1993)
  …est defenses by failing to raise the defense in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Gogolin & Stelter v. Karn’s Auto Imports, Inc., 886 F. 2d 100, 103 (5th Cir.1989) (defense waived when raised for first time in motion for directed verdict), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 1480, 108 L.Ed.2d 617 (1990); Hefley v. Jones, 687 F. 2d 1383, 1388 (10th Cir.1982) (defense waived when raised for first time 16 days before trial); Chicago & Northwestern Transp. Co. v. Negus-Sweenie, Inc., 549 F. 2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.19…
• United States v. De la Jara, 973 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …to have asked “Should I call my lawyer?”, then the question might not even constitute an equivocal invocation, and thus might require no clarification by the interrogating officers. In Norman v. Ducharme, 871 F. 2d 1483 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 1483, 108 L.Ed.2d 619 (1990) and 494 U.S. 1061, 110 [*751] S.Ct. 1538, 108 L.Ed.2d 777 (1990), for example, we observed that when the defendant asked a police officer “whether he should get an attorney,” the question “did not rise to the…