United States v. Stanley Zig Kinsman
Opinion
Opinion
Barnes, J.
The issue presented on this appeal is whether the district court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest confession on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to consult with an attorney of his own choice during custodial interrogation.
The relevant facts follow. Kinsman was arrested for possession of unregistered machine guns and silencers. Immediately after his arrest, he was advised of his Miranda rights. At that time, Kinsman testified at trial that he “requested [the interrogator] to call an attorney,” R.T. 80. The agents denied any such request was made. R.T. 17.
After Kinsman was brought into the Santa Ana Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Office, he was again advised of his Miranda rights. According to Kinsman, he thereupon again requested an attorney. R.T. 82. Ultimately, Kinsman requested to call Mr. Monroe, an attorney. Because the agents believed that Monroe was possibly an illegal conduit of messages between the defendant and his co-defendants, who were not yet apprehended, they refused to abide by Kinsman’s request. Finally, after being refused to see Monroe, Kinsman confessed.