United States v. Alfredo Zamora-Yescas

Appellant appeals from his conviction for bail jumping ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 3148 , 3150). He contends that the district court erred in failing to suppress his inculpatory statements that he claims were taken in violation of Miranda and of his right to counsel, and in admitting the bail bond in evidence without proper foundation. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.

The evidence in respect of appellant’s claim of Miranda error was conflicting. The district court’s resolution of that conflict against appellant binds us. There was substantial evidence, credited by the district court, to sustain that court’s finding that appellant’s statements to the arresting agents were voluntary. Although this Court has noted its disapproval of the practice of interviewing accused persons in the absence of counsel, we have held that law enforcement officers may question the accused without giving notice to counsel of the interrogation if the accused has waived his right to the presence of counsel. (Coughlan v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d 371 , cert. denied sub nom. Coghlan v. United States, 393 U.S. 870 , 89 S.Ct. 159 , 21 L.Ed.2d 139 .) Despite the…