USA V. JOEL CASTELLON, No. 14-50395 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50395 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04414-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOEL PALLARES CASTELLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 31, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Appellant Joel Pallares Castellon (Pallares) challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Pallares contends that the district court clearly erred in holding that he knowingly and intelligently waived all of his Miranda1 rights. Pallares also asserts that waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). because the officer threatened to question Pallares’ son if he did not obtain a statement from Pallares. The district court did not make the requisite determination that Pallares knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. See United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839, 847-48 (9th Cir. 2003). The transcript of the interview reflects that Pallares remained confused about the waiver of his rights despite the officer’s explanations. Ultimately, Pallares never affirmed that he understood the waiver of his rights. At the evidentiary hearing, the interrogating officer conceded that the wording of the waiver form was confusing. Pallares also presented undisputed testimony from a Spanish language interpreter that the waiver form and the officer’s explanations did not properly convey the waiver of Miranda rights in Spanish. Because the Miranda warning was not conveyed “clearly and in a manner that [was] unambiguous,” Pallares’ waiver was not knowing and intelligent. Id. at 848 (citation omitted).2 REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 Because we conclude that Pallares did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights, we need not, and do not, decide if his waiver was voluntary. 2
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.
