United States v. Victoria Jim

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Victoria Jim argues that she was subject to custodial interrogation without being advised of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but she did not bring a motion to suppress on this basis prior to trial. Failure to bring a motion to suppress prior to trial waives the issue for appeal. United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002).

Although we may in our discretion address the Miranda issue for “cause shown,” id.; United States v. Restrepo-Rua, 815 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir.1987), Jim has provided no explanation for her failure to bring the motion prior to trial. See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2000).

In an opinion filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum, in the case of United States v. Wahchumwah, No. 11-30101, we determined that Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment involving Ricky Wahc-humwah, Jim’s co-defendant, are multiplic-itous. Both Jim and Wahchumwah are named in Counts 4 and 5, and Jim challenged the counts as multiplicitous at trial. However, only Wahchumwah appealed the issue. ‘We ‘will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not…