United States v. Warren Daniel Desonia, 435 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Warren Daniel Desonia, 435 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Chappie v. Commissioner (tax, 1980-02-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chappie v. Commissioner (2×)
Tax Ct. · 1980 · confidence medium
The sleep or rest rule “is particularly aimed at formulating an objective test which will obviate individual analysis of countless factual variations.” Barry v. Commissioner, 435 F.2d 1290, 1291 (1st Cir. 1970), affg. per curiam 54 T.C. 1210 (1970).
cited Cited "see" Stevens v. Comm'r
Tax Ct. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barry v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1210 (1970) , affd. 435 F.2d 1290 (1st Cir. 1970) .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Warren Daniel DESONIA, Appellant
26056_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 5, 1971.
435 F.2d 1290
Howard R. Lonergan (argued), Portland, Or., for appellant., Vinita J. Neal (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Hamley, Koelsch, Per Curiam, Wright.
Published
PER CURIAM:

Warren Daniel Desonia appeals from his conviction of the crime of bank robbery.

Desonia contends that the trial court erred in receiving, in evidence, incriminating statements made by him in response to police questioning which was not accompanied by an adequate Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 [1966]), and that the incriminating answers he gave in the absence of counsel were not accompanied by a waiver of his Miranda rights.

In each of the two instances in which Desonia responded to questions, and the responses were admitted at trial, the oral and written warnings, taken together, fully complied with Miranda. The record indicates that the appellant fully understood his rights as therein stated. Under the circumstances, Desonia voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived those rights. The statements elicited were admissible.

Affirmed.