William C. Fendley, Jr. v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
William C. Fendley, Jr. v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Cordell Cassell (ca7, 1971-10-06) · Strongest negative: Gary James Eagan v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden (ca7, 1988-05-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Gary James Eagan v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden
7th Cir. · 1988 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.1967) (holding that "the defendant was not advised, as Miranda requires, of his right to have court-appointed counsel present during the interrogation,” when an FBI agent advised the defendant that "if he did not have any money to obtain an attorney that the Judge, the Court, would appoint one for him when he went to court.”); Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524 (5th Cir.1968) (The officer’s warning to the defendant provided that "if he was unable to hire an attorney the Commissioner or the Court would appoint one for him.” The…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Cordell Cassell
7th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rubey v. City of Fairbanks (2×)
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
Montoya v. United States, 392 F.2d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Windsor v. United States, 389 F.2d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923, 923-924 (5th Cir. 1967); Brooks v. State, Del., 229 A.2d 833, 835 (1967); Woods v. State, 211 So.2d 248, 249-250 (Fla.App.1968); Thomas v. State, 3 Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John William Atwell and James O. McCurley v. United States
5th Cir. · 1968 · confidence medium
Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966); Evans v. United States, 375 F.2d 355 (8th Cir., 1967); Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923, 924 (5th Cir., 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woods v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 . [2] Ibid. [3] Id. 384 U.S. at 478 , 86 S.Ct. at 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 726 . [4] Id. 384 U.S. at 479 , 86 S.Ct. at 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 726 . [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Elrod v. State, 1967, 281 Ala. 331 , 202 So.2d 539, 541 ; People v. Fioritto, Cal. App. 1967, 64 Cal. Rptr. 797 , 800; State v. Taylor, Mo. 1967, 421 S.W.2d 310, 312 ; State v. Ransom, 182 Neb. 243 , 153 N.W.2d 916, 917 (1967); State v. Travis, 49 N.J. 428 , 231 A.2d 205, 207 (1967); State v. McDaniel, 272 N.C. 556 , 158 S.E.2d 874…
cited Cited "see" Michael Francis Agius, A/K/A Michael Rockford Ages v. United States
5th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1967).
cited Cited "see" McCandless v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Craig v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1968 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Woods v. State and Fendley v. United States, supra. See also Atwell v. United States, 5 Cir.1968, 398 F.2d 507, 510 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William C. FENDLEY, Jr., Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
24554.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 2, 1967.
384 F.2d 923
1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4647
John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant., William J. Hamilton, Jr., First Asst. U. S. Atty., Samuel S. Forman, Asst. U. aS. Atty., Edward F. Boardman U. S. Atty., Middle Dist. of Florida, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Tuttle, Wisdom, Heebe.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The defendant was in state custody at the time of his interrogation by the FBI. The interrogation was an important part of the federal criminal proceedings which had obviously then focused on the defendant. As was the case in Miranda this was an interrogation “in a police-dominated atmosphere.” Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 445, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). At a hearing conducted by the district judge on the admissibility of a statement by the defendant taken at that interrogation, the FBI agent testified that the defendant was advised that he “had the right to remain silent, that he didn’t have to make any statement, that if he did make any statement, it could be used against him in a court of law.” Although the agent stated that he also advised the defendant that “he had the right to consult an attorney or anyone else before making a statement,” and that “if he did not have any money to obtain an attorney that the Judge, the Court, would appoint one for him when he went to court,” the defendant was not advised, as Miranda requires, of his right to have court- [*924] appointed counsel present during the interrogation. ' Although the interrogation was made and the defendant’s statement taken prior to the Miranda decision, the trial took place subsequent to Miranda and the strict standards established by that case should have been applied by the trial court to the issue of admissibility at trial. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966); Evans v. United States, 375 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1967). The statement having been improperly admitted, the conviction must be

Reversed.