The People of the Territory of Guam, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Edward Aldan Manalo, Defendant-appellant, 110 F.3d 69 (9th Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseAppeal for the United States District Court for the District of Guam, No. CR-94-00095A; Munson, George, and Unpingco, District Judges, Presiding.
D. Guam,
AFFIRMED.
Before: HUG, Chief Judge, THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
We consider appellant's arguments regarding his incriminating admissions, even though they were apparently not raised before the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam, because appellee has not objected to review on the merits. Manalo's incriminating question to Officer Benavente was not involuntary. Manalo spoke immediately after hearing his Miranda rights, and Benavente was not interrogating him. Benavente did not overcome Manalo's free will. See United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 63 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1995). Manalo's alleged intoxication was irrelevant, because the statement was otherwise "the product of a rational intellect and a free will." Medeiros v. Shimoda, 889 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 (1963)); cf. United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 888 (9th Cir. 1991) (defendant's statements are not involuntary solely because he had just been awakened).
Admission of Manalo's story to Officer Materne and others is also not error. Having expressed a desire for counsel, a suspect may not be further interrogated by the police until he has received counsel, "unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police." Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981). That is what happened. Materne was not interrogating Manalo or coercing him, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 591 (1990). Materne asked Manalo who he wanted as his lawyer, and whether he wanted a drink of water or to go to the bathroom. That was constitutionally permissible, United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985); Davis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 2355 (1994). Manalo voluntarily initiated a substantive discussion of the crime with Materne and other officers.
As for alleged instructional errors, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division in its well-reasoned opinion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
