Fellers v. United States
| Fellers v. United States | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 10, 2003 Decided January 26, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | John J. Fellers, Petitioner v. United States |
| Citations | 540 U.S. 519 (more)
540 U.S. 519
|
| Holding | |
| The Eighth Circuit erred in holding that the absence of an "interrogation" foreclosed petitioner's claim that his jailhouse statements should have been suppressed as fruits of the statements taken from him at his home. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by unanimous |
Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.
After John Fellers was indicted on February 24, 2000, by a grand jury, a police sergeant named Michael Garnett and a deputy sheriff named Jeff Bliemeister from the Lincoln, Nebraska Police Department and the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office respectively, came to his home to arrest him. When they came to his house, they knocked on the door and identified themselves. They requested to enter his house, and Fellers invited them to his living room. When the officers went into the living room, they advised him that they were here to question him on his involvement in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, a federal crime. During the discussion, the officers informed him that he had a warrant for his arrest and was indicted by a grand jury. The conspiracy charge was related to his association with four named individuals and many unknown suspects. Fellers told the officers that he knew that the four individuals used methamphetamine during his association. Fifteen minutes later, Fellers was formally arrested and transported to the Lancaster County Jail. It was only this time that he was read his Miranda rights. A waiver form was signed, the statements were reiterated, and Fellers admitted that he had loaned money to a female individual, even though he suspected that she was involved in drug transactions.
At a pre-trial hearing, Fellers moved to suppress the statements he made to the offices from evidence. During the hearing, the magistrate in charge of the case recommended that portions of Fellers' statements, including the statement he made at his house, should be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. The District Court subsequently suppressed the statement made during the initial confrontation, but admitted the jailhouse statement into evidence, arguing that under Oregon v. Elstad, Fellers knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making the statement. At the actual trial itself, Fellers was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Fellers appealed, arguing that the statement made in the jailhouse should be suppressed just like the statement at the house as a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the initial verdict, concluding,": Fellers argues that the district court should have suppressed his inculpatory statements made at the jail because the primary taint of the improperly elicited statements made at his home was not removed by the recitation of his Miranda rights at the jail.
...
Wikipedia