United States v. Macklin

United States v. Macklin, 900 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 12, 1990 · No. No. 89-5807

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that Miranda warnings were not required for mildly retarded defendants who were not in custody, as they were repeatedly told they were free to leave and voluntarily appeared for questioning. The court also ruled that mental disability alone does not render a confession involuntary; under *Colorado v. Connelly*, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate, and no coercion was shown. The district court's suppression of the confessions was reversed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Boggs; Norris; Edwards
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
April 12, 1990
Docket number
No. 89-5807
Procedural posture
Appeal from the district court's order suppressing confessions
Precedential value
Published
Parties
United States of America v. Albert Ray Macklin and Earnestine Mack
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureevidenceconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal LawConstitutional LawEvidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendants were in custody such that Miranda warnings were required.
  2. Whether the confessions were involuntary due to the defendants' mental disabilities and lack of coercion.

Holdings

  1. The defendants were not in custody because a reasonable person in their position would not have felt their freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.
  2. The confessions were voluntary because there was no coercive police activity, and mental disability alone does not render a confession involuntary.

Key quotations

A reasonable person could not have thought that, by being questioned in front of the person's home, in the manner in which Kennedy and Barnett questioned the defendants, the person was in custody. (950)
As there is no evidence that the agents exerted any coercion on the defendants, the confessions cannot be considered involuntary. (951)
If the retarded citizens before us in this case are to be treated as lacking the free will necessary for making a valid confession, by what logic could they not also be denied the other rights mentioned above? (952)

Factual background

On August 24, 1987, Secret Service agents interviewed defendants Macklin and Mack at their home. The agents informed them they were not under arrest and free to leave. The defendants agreed to provide handwriting samples and then were asked to come to the agents' office the next day. On August 25, they appeared voluntarily and provided written statements about forging a Treasury check. Both defendants are mildly retarded (Macklin IQ 59, Mack IQ 70). The agents did not read Miranda warnings. The district court suppressed the confessions, holding that the defendants' disabilities made their statements involuntary without counsel and Miranda warnings.

Procedural history

The district court suppressed the signed confessions of the defendants, finding that their mental disabilities prevented them from making voluntary statements without Miranda warnings and counsel. The government appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…