United States v. Neely Welch, 455 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Neely Welch, 455 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2017)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 213 Admissibility of statements made to foreign police19 citing cases“the miranda requirements were primarily designed to prevent united states police officers from relying upon improper interrogation techniques and as the requirements have little, if any, deterrent effect upon foreign police officers, the miranda warnings should not serve as the sine qua non of admi…”2 citing courts quote it · 18 listed here
  • United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2017).published
    Africa, 552 F.3d 177, 200 (2d Cir. 2008); see id. at 208 (noting that "statements obtained under ... circumstances” where suspects were "forced to speak” to the agents of a foreign state “could not be admitted in a U.S. trial if the situat…
  • United States v. Bary, 978 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).published
    United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972). .
  • United States v. Shavanaux, 647 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2011).published
    See United States v. Mundt, 508 F.2d 904, 906 (10th Cir.1974); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972); United States v. Chavarria, 443 F.2d 904 , 905 (9th Cir.1971); United States v. Nagelberg, 434 F.2d 585 , 588 n. 1 (2d…
  • United States v. Odeh, 552 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008).published
    “the Miranda requirements were primarily designed to prevent United States police officers from relying upon improper interrogation techniques and as the requirements have little, if any, deterrent effect upon foreign po…”
  • In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies, No. 01-1535-cr(L) (5th (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2008).published
    “the Miranda requirements were primarily designed to prevent United States police officers from relying upon improper interrogation techniques and as the requirements have little, if any, deterrent effect upon foreign po…”
  • United States v. Karake, 443 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2006).published
    Both parties agree that in the absence of a finding of a joint venture, foreign officials interrogating subjects overseas do not have to administer Miranda warnings, see, e.g., United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1972); Unit…
  • United States v. Marzook, 435 F. Supp. 2d 708 (N.D. Ill. 2006).published
    See also United States v. Martindale, 790 F.2d 1129, 1132 (4th Cir.1986); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972).
  • United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).published 2 cites
    See United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 69 (2d Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259-60 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d C…
  • United States v. Bin Laden, 132 F. Supp. 2d 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).published
    (See, e.g., United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1972); Kilday v. United States, 481 F.2d 655, 656 (5th Cir.1973).) However, the same courts then go on to determine whether the challenged statement is nonetheless involuntary…
  • Alvarado v. State, 853 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).published 4 cites
    Confession held admissible despite Mexican police’s failure to give Miranda warnings); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 212 (2nd Cir.1972) (Statement made to Bahamanian police officer admissible despite absence of Miranda warnings); U…
Show 8 more citing cases
  • Alvarado v. State, 804 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991).published
    See also United States v. Heller, 625 F.2d 594, 599-600 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972); United States v. Nagelberg, 434 F.2d 585 , 587 n. 1 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 939 , 91 S.Ct. 935 ,…
  • United States v. Gerena, 667 F. Supp. 911 (D. Conn. 1987).published
    (provided the confession was voluntary)
  • United States v. Molina-Chacon, 627 F. Supp. 1253 (E.D.N.Y. 1986).published
    Cotroni, 527 F.2d at 711 ; United States v. Trenary, 473 F.2d 680, 681-82 (9th Cir.1973); Kilday v. United States, 481 F.2d 655, 656 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972); United States v. Chavarria, 443 F…
  • Roger M. Stowe v. Frank E. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1978).published
    Since it has little if any deterrent effect upon foreign police, see United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1972), it is seldom used to bar their work product.
  • Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2002).published
    (courts must consider totality of the circumstances to determine whether a statement was voluntary)
  • United States v. Bin Laden, 160 F. Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).published
    See United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1972).
  • United States v. Charles Cassino, 467 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1973).published
    See United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam). 31 .
  • United States v. Harun, 232 F. Supp. 3d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).published
    Notwithstanding defendant’s failure to proffer affidavits based on personal knowledge regarding the voluntariness of Ha-run’s statements, for the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion to suppress is also denied on the merits. [redact…
At page 212 Admissibility of statements made without miranda warnings3 citing casesStatement made to Bahamanian police officer admissible despite absence of Miranda warnings1 citing court put it this way
  • Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).published 2 cites
    Alvarado v. State, 853 S.W.2d 17, 24 (Tex. Crim.App.1993); United States v. Heller, 625 F.2d 594 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 972 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Welch, 455 F.2d 211, 212 (2nd Cir.1972); State v. Wr…
  • Alvarado v. State, 853 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).published 4 cites
    (Statement made to Bahamanian police officer admissible despite absence of Miranda warnings)
  • United States v. Yousef, 925 F. Supp. 1063 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).published
    (recognizing that the Miranda requirements have little if any deterrent effect upon foreign police)
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Neely WELCH, Appellant
410, Docket 71-1653.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 2, 1972.
Published opinion
455 F.2d 211
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11510
Thomas Day Edwards, New York City, for appellant., William B. Gray, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., and Richard J. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Friendly, Moore, Oakes, Per Curiam.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: First Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM:

Neely Welch appeals from a judgment of conviction for conspiring to possess, and for possessing and transporting in foreign commerce, a stolen United States Treasury Bill. The sole claim on this appeal is that the District Court erred in admitting certain exculpatory statements [1] made to a Bahamian police officer in the Bahamas. According to the appellant, • the statements should have been excluded as he did not have the benefit of the full Miranda warnings. We disagree.

The appellant was arrested on May 1, 1970, at a branch of The Chase Manhattan Bank in Nassau, Bahamas, where he was attempting to deposit a $1 million United States Treasury Bill which had been stolen from another branch of the same bank in New York City. The arresting officer was the Assistant Police Commissioner of the Royal Bahamas Police Force. Accompanying the Assistant Commissioner was a Special Agent of the F.B.I.

Immediately following the arrest, the appellant was taken to police headquarters. There, in the presence of the Special Agent, the Assistant Commissioner, in compliance with Bahamian law, warned the appellant that :

“ . . .he was not obliged to say anything unless he wished to do so, but whatever he do [sic] say would be down in writing and may be given in evidence against him.” (Trial Trans, p. 135).

Then, in response to questions by the Bahamian police officer, the appellant[*213] made the exculpatory statements here in question. [2]

At issue is the question of whether a statement made during a custodial interrogation to a foreign police officer in a foreign jurisdiction is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a United States court because the suspect was not given the Miranda warnings. Courts which have considered this question have answered it in the negative. [3] These courts have reasoned that since the Miranda requirements were primarily designed to prevent United States police officers from relying upon improper interrogation techniques and as the requirements have little, if any, deterrent effect upon foreign police officers, the Miranda warnings should not serve as the sine qua non of admissibility. We find this proposition fundamentally correct.

Whenever a court is asked to rule upon the admissibility of a statement made to a foreign police officer, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the statement was voluntary. If the court finds the statement involuntary, it must exclude this because of its inherent unreliability, as in Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1887). There was no basis for such a finding here.

We have no occasion here to decide whether exclusion would be demanded if United States police officers simply used foreign police officials as instruments, assuming such a case could ever arise. Here the Bahamian police presumably had an interest of their own in this attempt to pass stolen property in the Bahamas. There would thus be no basis for finding that the F.B.I. was simply utilizing the Bahamian police to evade Miranda or for directing a remand for the taking of further evidence on that issue as the defendant seeks. [4]

Affirmed.

1

. In substantial part the statements paralleled the appellant’s defense at trial. During the interrogation and at trial the appellant contended that he had won the Treasury Bill in a “crap” game. The main discrepancy between the statements and the appellant’s defense involved the alleged date of the “crap” game. His statements during the interrogation indicated that be bad won the Treasury Bill in August or September of 1969. Evidence at the trial established that he could not have possessed the Bill during those months.

2

. After the Assistant Commissioner completed his interrogation, the Special Agent gave the appellant the full Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask additional questions. The appellant reiterated and expanded upon his former exculpatory statements. As we find the earlier statements admissible, the subsequent statements were also admissible.

3

. See, e. g., United States v. Chavarria, 443 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1971) ; United States v. Nagelberg, 434 F.2d 585, 587, n. 1 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 939, 91 S.Ct. 935, 28 L.Ed.2d 219 (1971) ; Commonwealth v. Wallace, 356 Mass. 92, 248 N.E.2d 246 (1969).

4

. Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 n. 10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 963, 86 S.Ct. 449, 15 L.Ed.2d 366 (1965) ; Nagelberg, supra, 434 F.2d at 587 n. 1. See also, Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960).