United States v. Pence

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Christopher Pence's conviction for using a facility of interstate commerce in connection with murder-for-hire. The court held that Pence was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when he made pre-warning statements to FBI agents during questioning outside his home. The court concluded that, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have understood the encounter as equivalent to formal arrest.

Holdings

1. Pence was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when he made his pre-warning statements. Considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in his position would not have believed that he was under formal arrest, not free to leave, or subject to restraints equivalent to formal arrest.
2. The court declined to abandon the reasonable-person standard and declined to remand for expert testimony because Miranda custody is an objective legal question.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pence was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he made incriminating statements before receiving Miranda warnings.
2. Whether the Second Circuit should abandon the objective reasonable-person standard for determining Miranda custody or remand for consideration by human-behavior experts.

Disposition

affirmed