United States v. Edward Blunt Wilson

Appellant Edward Blunt Wilson was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d). Prior to and during the trial to the court, evidence was received on a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements given by Wilson while he was in custody. Thereafter the motion was denied. Appellant now challenges this refusal to suppress the statements. We find no error in the admission of the statements and therefore affirm.

I.

FACTS.

After appellant’s arrest on a Washington-state forgery charge, he was advised of his Miranda rights and was again advised after his arrival at the police station. At the station, questioning about the forgery began. The drift of the questioning changed when appellant was shown a photograph of a bank robbery suspect, at which point he became somewhat agitated. After further questioning and attempts to calm the appellant, an F.B.I. agent who had been investigating the bank robbery was called in. After the agent again read appellant his rights, appellant asserted his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Interrogation promptly ceased and Wilson was booked and jailed on the state forgery charge.

Less than one hour later,…

concurring specially:

I adhere to the views that I expressed dissenting in United States v. Rodriquez-Gastelum, supra. I concur under the compulsion of the majority opinion in that case.

571 F.2d 455 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Blunt WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-2959. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 2, 1978. Thomas W. Hillier, II, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant. Jack Meyerson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal From the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before HUFSTEDLER, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Edward Blunt Wilson was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d). Prior to and during the trial to the court, evidence was received on a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements given by Wilson while he was in custody. Thereafter the motion was denied. Appellant now challenges this refusal to suppress the statements. We find no error in the admission of the statements and therefore affirm. I. FACTS. 2 After appellant's arrest on a Washington state forgery charge, he was advised of his Miranda rights and was again advised after his arrival at the police station. At the station, questioning about the forgery began. The drift of the questioning changed when…