United States v. Irvine Sisk Stevens, 445 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Irvine Sisk Stevens, 445 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Robinson v. McKee (mied, 2019-07-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. McKee
E.D. Mich. · 2019 · confidence medium
Although Petitioner did not sign a written waiver of his rights, “there is no requirement that Miranda rights can be waived only in writing.” United States v. Stevens, 445 F.2d 304, 305 (6th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Don L. Hart
10th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See United States v. Powe, 591 F.2d 833, 842 (D.C.Cir.1978) (“unless the voluntariness question is brought to attention of the trial court, the trial judge generally is not required to raise the issue sua sponte, and a Jackson v. Denno hearing is not constitutionally mandated”); United States v. Stevens, 445 F.2d 304, 305 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), (“hearing is required only if the issue of voluntariness is raised”) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 945 , 92 S.Ct. 298 , 30 L.Ed.2d 260 (1971); Jacobson v. People of State of California, 431 F.2d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir.1970) (“Only where there is an ob…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert R. Yamashita
9th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
He did not assert in the trial court (or in this court) that they were in fact involuntary. 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (a) requires a hearing “only if the issue of voluntariness is raised.” United States v. Stevens, 445 F.2d 304, 305 (6th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horton v. Rewerts
E.D. Mich. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
However, “[a]n express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel . . . is not inevitably either necessary or sufficient to establish waiver.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); see also United States v. Stevens, 445 F.2d 304, 305 (6th Cir. 1971) (per curiam opinion stating that “there is no requirement that Miranda rights can be waived only in writing”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jescell Whittle
6th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Bentley, 726 F.2d 1124, 1128 (6th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Stevens, 445 F.2d 304, 305 (6th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (“[A] hearing [pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (a) ] is required only if the issue of voluntariness is raised.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Richard Scott McLernon Kido Yaqui, Sherri Louise Farrell, Miguel Angel Carranza, and Marco Antonio Valdez-Cota
6th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Goss, 484 F.2d 434, 437-38 (6th Cir.1973) (voluntariness instruction not required where question is not in issue), United States v. Dye, 508 F.2d 1226, 1232 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 974 , 95 S.Ct. 1395 , 43 L.Ed.2d 653 (1975) (voluntariness instruction unnecessary where issue not raised before the jury), United States v. Groce, 682 F.2d 1359 (11th Cir.1982) (voluntariness not pursued by defense — failure to instruct not plain error), United States v. Mahar, 645 F.2d 780 (9th Cir.1981) (no substantial jury evidence on voluntariness of confession— inst…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Irvine Sisk STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant
71-1083.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 9, 1971.
445 F.2d 304
Matthew B. Quinn, Jr., court appointed, Louisville, Ky., for appellant., Duane Schwartz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for appellee; George J. Long, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., on brief.
Weick, Edwards, Mc-Cree.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of stealing from an interstate shipment of freight in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a state sentence. On appeal, he claims that evidence of three confessions was improperly admitted at trial, because he had not signed a statement indicating that he had been advised of his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). But there was evidence in the record that he was so advised, and there is no requirement that Miranda rights can be waived only in writing. See, e. g., Pettyjohn v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 419 F.2d 651, 655 (1969); United States v. Thompson, 417 F.2d 196, 197 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1047, 90 S. Ct. 699, 24 L.Ed.2d 692 (1970).

Appellant also complains that the voluntariness of his confessions was not considered by the District Judge out of the presence of the jury in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3501. But that statute provides only that

Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall determine any issue as to voluntariness.

18 U.S.C. § 3501(a) (emphasis added). We interpret the italicized language to indicate, contrary to appellant’s contention, that a hearing is required only if the issue of voluntariness is raised. In this case, that issue has been raised neither at trial nor on appeal. The only objection made to the testimony concerning the confessions related to the lack of written acknowledgement or waiver of Miranda rights. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict on this ground. The other contentions raised by appellant are without merit.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.