United States v. Concepcion Rubio, A/K/A \Carol Rubio (1983)

Law enforcement officials were able to trace Peeples’ 35 Cf. Rubio, 709 F.2d at 153 (affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress because, among other things, “there was no purposeful postponement of arraignment, and no lengthy, hostile, or coercive interrogation which caused the [defendant] prejudice”); see also ante note 32. 36United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 118 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 37 See Wong Sun v. United…

See United States v. Belle, 593 F.2d 487, 493 (3d Cir.1979) (en banc) (“When a codefendant’s extrajudicial statement does not directly implicate the defendant, however, the Bruton rule does not come into play.”); see also United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir.2002); United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1195-96 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 154-55 (2d Cir.1983).

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 155 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation 39 marks and citation omitted). 20 19-1645-cr VII.

Finally, regarding appellants’ contentions that the statements were inadmissible due to unreasonable delay in appearing before a magistrate, this court has held that “a lapse of hours between arrest and arraignment, standing alone, does not require the exclusion of a statement made during the period.” United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

As the court held in United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983), an express statement is not required to establish such a waiver.

Butler, 441 U.S. at 373 , 99 S.Ct. at 1757 ; United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171, 1175 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2401 , 44 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975). “ ‘[I]n at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.’ ” Rubio, 709 F.2d at 152 -53 (quoting Butler, 441 U.S. at 373 , 99 S.Ct. at 1757 ).

Finally, the court found no evidence that “there was any collusion between the tribal law enforcement or judicial authorities and the FBI to delay the defendant’s arraignment....” See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983) (finding “no purposeful postponement of arraignment”).

We see nothing to indicate that, insofar as the murder charge was concerned, the testimony concerning Mrs. O’Connor’s state of mind was “crucial” or “devastating”, Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 87 , 91 S.Ct. 210, 219 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); Rado v. Connecticut, 607 F.2d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 920 , 100 S.Ct. 3009 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1980); United States v. Wright, 588 F.2d 31, 38 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 1236 , 59 L.Ed.2d …

A valid waiver may be- inferred “from the actions and words of the person interrogated.” Id.; United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, at 152 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171, 1175 (2d Cir.1974), cert, denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2401 , 44 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975).

United States v. Rubio, supra note 4, at 153. 8 .

Monday); Bliss, supra, 445 A.2d at 627-28 & n. 4, 633 (arrest at about 3:10 a.m., Miranda warnings given, waiver sometime after 3:15 a.m., shortly thereafter defendant told he was not under arrest and taken to hospital, arrested again sometime before 8:45 a.m., waived rights and made statement at about 10:30 a.m.; held at least overnight before arraigned); Pettyjohn v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 69 , 71-72, 74-75, 419 F.2d 651, 653-54, 656-57 (1969) (arrest at about 2:4…

See United States v. Perez, 733 F.2d 1026, 1029, 1035 (2d Cir.1984) (Rule 5(a) violated where there has been unnecessary and unreasonable delay in excess of six hours); see also Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 452-53 , 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1358-59 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343-44 , 63 S.Ct. 608, 614-15 , 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943); United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153-54 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Egan, 501 F.Supp. 1252, 1263 (S.D.N…

Id. at 1035 ; see also United States v. Khan, 625 F.Supp. 868, 874 (S.D.N.Y.1986); cf. United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 154 (2d Cir.1983) (where unreasonable delay has occurred a court must next determine what, if any, prejudice a defendant has suffered by reason of the delay).

The rule in the federal jurisdiction was enunciated in United States v. Jaswal, 47 F.3d 539, 542 (2d Cir.1995), as follows: Finally, regarding appellants contentions that the statements were inadmissible due to unreasonable delay in appearing before a magistrate, this court has held that “a lapse of hours between arrest and arraignment, standing alone, does not require exclusion of a statement made during the period.” United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 , 365-66 & n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 665 , 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981) (citing United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 255 , 86 S.Ct. 1416 , 16 L.Ed.2d 510 (1966)); United States v. Estrada, 164 F.3d 619 , 1998 WL 716074 , at *2 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Fields, 592 F.2d 638, 647-48 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed…

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983) (internal citations omitted); see also Morrison, 449 U.S. at 366 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 665 (citing United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 255 , 86 S.Ct. 1416 , 16 L.Ed.2d 510 (1966)); United States v. Estrada, 164 F.3d 619 , 1998 WL 716074 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Fields, 592 F.2d 638, 647-48 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979). 213 .

Patton v. Thieret, 791 F.2d 543, 547-48 (7th Cir.) (finding valid waiver where warnings given within 40 minutes of the confession), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 888 , 107 S.Ct. 284 , 93 L.Ed.2d 259 (1986), the time lapse between arrest and arraignment, see United States v. Jaswal, 47 F.3d at 542 (noting that “‘a lapse of hours between arrest and arraignment, standing alone, does not require the exclusion of a statement made during the period’ ” and finding that statement was volun…

See Butler, 441 U.S. at 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 ; see also Scarpa, 897 F.2d at 68-69 (affirming district court’s finding of an implied waiver when evidence showed the defendant “consistently chose to confront law enforcement officers without assistance,” negotiated inside his motel room with DEA agents for 45 minutes without contacting an attorney, though he had previously worked with lawyers); United States v. Hall, 724 F.2d 1055, 1060 (2d Cir.1983) (affirming district court’s …

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

United States v. Toney, 579 F.Supp. 652, 656 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (citing United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983)), aff'd, 733 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir.1984).

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153-54 (2d Cir.1983) (defendant’s statement held admissible although it was made nearly two days after weekend arrest where, except for quite reasonable periods of time actually spent in processing and routine questioning, the hours between arrest and arraignment were spent mainly in lodging at the MCC while awaiting arraignment).

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153-54 (2d Cir.1983) (defendant’s statement held admissible although given nearly two days after weekend arrest where, except for quite reasonable periods of time actually spent in processing and in routine questioning, the hours between arrest and arraignment were spent mainly in lodging at the Manhattan Correctional Center (“MCC”) while awaiting arraignment).

The limiting instruction given by the trial court “will avoid a Bruton confrontation issue unless the admitted evidence is ‘clearly inculpatory’ as to the complaining co-defendant and is ‘vitally important to the government’s case.’ ” United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 155 (2d Cir.1983), quoting United States v. Wingate, 520 F.2d 309, 313 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1074 , 96 S.Ct. 858 , 47 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976), quoting in turn United States v. Catalano, 491 F.2d 2…

“It is not the lapse of time, but the use of time, ... to employ the condemned psychologically coercive ... practices which is proscribed by the cases.” United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. Marrero, 450 F.2d 373, 376 (2d Cir.1971)).

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979); United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2401 , 44 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975).

United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983); see United States v. Silva, 715 F.2d 43, 49 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332 , 1336 n. 5 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Dohm, 618 F.2d 1169, 1174 (5th Cir.1980). 56 .

See also, United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365 , 101 S.Ct. 665, 668 , 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981); United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 152 (2d Cir.1983).

On the first question the accused has the burden; on the second the prosecution has it.” 591 F.2d at 911 (quoting Sherman, 200 F.2d at 882-83 ); see, e.g., United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817, 821-22 (D.C.Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2321 , 85 L.Ed.2d 840 (1985); see also United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 151 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 154 (2d Cir.1983) (overnight lodging); United States v. Collins, 462 F.2d 792, 796 (2d Cir.1972) (routine processing and transit); Berkovich, 932 F.Supp. at 588-89 (cooperation); United States v. Gomez, 758 F.Supp. 145, 152 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (routine processing and overnight lodging); Lopez, 2006 WL 1455455 , at *5 (processing, transit and overnight lodging); United States v. Haouari, No. 00 Cr. 15(JFK), 2000 WL 1593345 , at *7 (S.D.N.Y.

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153-54 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Burgos, 579 F.2d 747, 749-50 (2d Cir.1978).

See, e.g., United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983) (affirming district court’s denial' of motion to suppress based on district judge’s findings that, inter alia, “there was no credible evidence that [the defendant] was coerced into making any statements through physical or mental abuse” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

“The determination of whether a delay beyond the six—hour time limit is unreasonable is necessarily fact specific.” United States v. Palacio, 735 F.Supp. 484, 487 (D.Conn.1990) (observing that “[i]n focusing on how the time spent was used ... courts have not deemed delay caused by the desire to investigate other crimes a reason justifying disregard of a defendant’s right to a prompt presentment) (citations omitted).” “Delays attributable to routine processing, transportation…

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 154 (2nd Cir.1983). 1 Once the F.B.I. processing was complete, the agents should have taken the defendant to be arraigned.

See, United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 155 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 154 (2d Cir.1983) (“... our discomfort increases in direct proportion to the length of ‘necessary’ prearraignment delay attributable to the unavailability of a judicial officer, even on weekends.”); United States v. Yong Bing-Gong, 594 F.Supp. 248, 254 (N.D.N.Y.1984) (In light of a lengthy prearraignment delay, the arresting officers had no legitimate excuse for not arraigning defendant promptly on the next morning).

See, e.g., United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 155 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Slocum, 695 F.2d 650, 655 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1015 , 103 S.Ct. 1260 , 75 L.Ed.2d 487 (1983); United States ex rel.

See United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 153 (2d Cir.1983).

See United States v. Rubio, supra, 709 F.2d at 154 .

Such statements must be both “clearly inculpatory” and “vitally important to the [prosecution’s] case.” United States v. Wingate, 520 F.2d 309, 313 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1074 , 96 S.Ct. 858 , 47 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976) (quoting United States v. Catalano, 491 F.2d 268, 273 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 825 , 95 S.Ct. 42 , 42 L.Ed.2d 48 (1974)); see United States v. Rubio, 709 F.2d 146, 155 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Burke, 700 F.2d 70, 85 (2d Cir.), cert. d…