green
Positive treatment
15.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington, V. Tony Rico Sanders
There, “agents gave [the defendant] several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings” and “[o]n no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda.” Garcia, 431 F.2d at 134 (formatting added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
48924 & 48925 State v. Panagiotou-Scigliano
Williams v. Twomey, 467 F.2d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir. 1972), abrogated by Duckworth, 492 U.S. 195 ; United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mayer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In one of the cited cases, the Ninth Circuit held that federal agents had provided inadequate Miranda warnings because they advised the suspect "[a]t one point ... that she had a right to the presence of counsel'when she answered any questions"' but told her at another point that "she could 'have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court."' United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir. 1970); compare id., with United States v. McCarty, 835 F. Supp. 2d 938, 959 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mayer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In one of the cited cases, the Ninth Circuit held that federal agents had provided inadequate Miranda warnings because they advised the suspect "[a]t one point ... that she had a right to the presence of counsel'when she answered any questions"' but told her at another point that "she could 'have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court."' United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir. 1970); compare id., with United States v. McCarty, 835 F. Supp. 2d 938, 959 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mayer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In one of the cited cases, the Ninth Circuit held that federal agents had provided inadequate Miranda warnings because they advised the suspect “[a]t one point... that she had a right to the presence of counsel ‘when she answered any questions’ ” but told her at another point that “she could ‘have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court.’ ” United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir. 1970); compare id., with United States v. McCarty, 835 F. Supp. 2d 938, 959 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Maine v. Glidden
(2×)
The Court explained that in Garcia, the Ninth Circuit "found inadequate advice to the defendant that she could 'have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court."' Id. (quoting Garcia, 431 F.2d at 134).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Delaware v. Wright.
The Prysock Court compared the warnings given to the defendant with warnings in two lower court cases in which the courts found the warning to be inadequate.106 In one case the defendant was advised she had “an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court.”107 In the 103 See id. at 558-59. 104 Id. at 357. 105 Id. at 359-60. 106 Id. at 360-61. 107 United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). 51 other the defendant was told “if he was charged ... he would be appointed counsel.”108 The warnings in these tw…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McCarty
Specifically, Defendant relies on United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134, 134 (9th Cir.1970), in which the defendant was told on the one hand that she had “a right to the presence of counsel ‘when she answered any questions,’ ” but on the other hand that “she could ‘have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court.’ ” Garcia held that these inconsistent warnings “failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word.” Id.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America Ex Rel. James v. Placek v. State of Illinois
(2×)
Garcia was told that she could have an attorney present during questioning, but also that she could “have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U.S. Commissioner or the Court.” 431 F.2d at 134 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Crumpton
See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng
See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970) (conviction reversed because defendant given several different versions of “Miranda bundle of warnings,” none completely correct; warnings “[t]aken together . . . were inconsistent” and, thus, inadequate).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McBroom
Id. at 361 , 101 S.Ct. at 2810 ; see United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jesse De La Rosa v. State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam); Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524, 534-35 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Garcia, 431 F. 2d 134 (9 Cir. 1970); Lathers v. United States, 396 F. 2d 524 (5 Cir. 1968); Sullins v. United States, 389 F. 2d 985 (10 Cir. 1968); Fendley v. United States, 384 F. 2d 923 (5 Cir. 1967); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548 , 219 So. 2d 377 (1969); Reese v. State, 462 P. 2d 331 (Okl.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Ruben Williams v. John Twomey and Peter Bensinger
(2×)
See United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9 Cir. 1970); Lathers v. United States, 396 F.2d 524 (5 Cir. 1968); Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985 (10 Cir. 1968); Fendley v. United States, 384 F.2d 923 (5 Cir. 1967); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548 , 219 So.2d 377 (1969); Reese v. State, 462 P.2d 331 (Okl.Cr.1969); State v. Creach, 77 Wash.2d 194 , 461 P.2d 329 (Wash.1969).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Guyette for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
See, United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Blanford
See also United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970) and Perez v. People, 176 Colo. 505 , 491 P.2d 969, 970 (1971).
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Irene Rubio GARCIA, Appellant
v.
Irene Rubio GARCIA, Appellant
23269.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 3, 1970.
431 F.2d 134
Barry Tarlow (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., J. Kent Steele, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Jertberg, Ely, Huf-Stedler.
Cited by 54 opinions | Published
Defendant Garcia appeals from a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 174. Error in admitting Garcia’s inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, compels reversal of her conviction and a remand for a new trial from which those statements will be excluded.
After Garcia was arrested, federal agents repeatedly questioned her. During the course of the interrogation sessions, the agents gave her several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings. On no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. Taken together, the warnings were inconsistent. At one point she was told that she had a right to the presence of counsel “when she answered any questions”; on another, she was told that she could “have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court.”
The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. “[T]he offer of counsel must be clarion and firm, not one of mere impressionism.” Lathers v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 524, 535. (Accord, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez (9th Cir. 1968) 400 F.2d 593; Gilpin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 638.)
Discussion of the remaining contentions is rendered unnecessary by our disposition of the Miranda issue.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.