Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03845/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pamuceno Rodriguez-Zuniga
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3845

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Pamuceno Rodriguez-Zuniga, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: May 16, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After he was implicated in drug activity, Pamuceno Rodriguez-Zuniga was

questioned by police at his home and made incriminating statements. Before trial,

Rodriguez-Zuniga filed a motion to suppress the statements alleging police had not

given him Miranda warnings before questioning him. After a hearing, the district

court*

 denied Rodriguez-Zuniga’s motion, finding “no support for [his] claim that

[he] was interrogated, or that he made any incriminating statements, prior to being

given Miranda warnings by law enforcement.” The statements were admitted at trial,

Appellate Case: 04-3845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2005 Entry ID: 1903124
-2-

and a jury convicted Rodriguez-Zuniga of conspiracy to distribute and possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Rodriguez-Zuniga now appeals his

conviction arguing their admission violates Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

We affirm. 

 Under Miranda, the Government may not use statements made during

custodial interrogations unless the defendant has previously been advised of his Fifth

Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and right to an attorney

Id. at 444. Rodriguez-Zuniga contends the district court should have granted his

motion to suppress, either before or during the trial, or his request for a mistrial,

because the officers did not advise him of his Fifth Amendment privilege before he

made the incriminating statements. 

At the hearing on Rodriguez-Zuniga’s motion to suppress, the federal agents

who conducted the interview testified Rodriguez-Zuniga was advised of his Miranda

rights before questioning. The agents stated that although the time of the Miranda

waiver was noted on one form as 4:41 p.m., the agents had finished the interview by

4:34 and the notation was a mistake. One agent’s notes indicated the Miranda

warning was given at 3:25 p.m., and both agents agreed that was the correct time.

The district court credited the agents’ testimony, finding Rodriguez-Zuniga had been

given Miranda warnings before making his incriminating statements and the 4:41

notation was an inadvertent error. 

We defer to the district court’s finding that the agents’ testimony was credible.

United States v. Lockett, 393 F.3d 834, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2005). Given the agents’

testimony, the district court’s finding that Rodriguez-Zuniga received Miranda

warnings before questioning is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Terry, 400

F.3d 575, 579 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Thus, Rodriguez-Zuniga’s

incriminating statements were not obtained in violation of Miranda. 

Appellate Case: 04-3845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2005 Entry ID: 1903124
-3-

Because the district court properly denied Rodriguez-Zuniga’s motion to

suppress and motion for a mistrial, we affirm Rodriguez-Zuniga’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3845 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2005 Entry ID: 1903124