United States v. Vinas
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Hall dissents in a separate opinion.
John G. Koeltt, District Judge:
This appeal requires us to decide whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Government's inaccurate pre-trial disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure caused him to forgo moving to suppress an inculpatory statement introduced at trial that he made before receiving warnings specified in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We conclude that a new trial is warranted. The Government's disclosure violated Rule 16(a)(1)(A) and caused the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. Gaetano ModicaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- United States v. David StevensCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Kerns v. BaderCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
- United States v. McPartland, SpotaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023
- United States v. Beltran-Leyva (Guzman Loera)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2022