United States v. Loucious, No. 16-10121 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation. Defendant claimed that the Miranda warnings he received were deficient because they did not tell him of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning. The court concluded that Miranda warnings need not follow a precise formulation. In this case, the Miranda warnings given to defendant adequately conveyed that he had the right to consult with an attorney before questioning even though they did not explicitly inform him of that right. The court explained that the right was reasonably inferred. Accordingly, the court reversed the suppression of defendant's statements.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements in a case in which the defendant argued that the Miranda warnings he received were constitutionally deficient because they did not tell him of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning. Before the start of custodial interrogation, the defendant received warnings informing him he had the right to remain silent; he had the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and that if he could not afford an attorney, an attorney would be appointed before questioning. The panel explained that Miranda warnings need not follow a precise formulation, and held that the warnings given to the defendant adequately conveyed that he had the right to consult with an attorney before questioning even though they did not explicitly inform him of that right. The panel wrote that this right was reasonably to be inferred.
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.