Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. William THOMPSON, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-05-10
Citations: 463 F.2d 1258
Docket Number: No. 71-1169
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. William THOMPSON, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 463
Pages: 1258–1260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. William THOMPSON, Appellant.
No. 71-1169.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 7, 1972.
Decided May 10, 1972.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1972.
Miss Selma M. Levine, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), with whom Mr. Keith S. Watson, Washington, D. ' C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Julius A. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, John A. Terry and Edwin A. Williams, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Harold H. Titus, Jr., present U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge, and MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The principal question which is presented here by a most able brief on behalf of appellant is whether certain statements by the accused should have been suppressed because they were the result of a police interview that should have been preceded by Miranda warnings. Appellant contends that the investigation had focused sufficiently upon him as a suspect to require such warnings. Initially appellant had claimed he was a victii of the roberry along with the complaining witness. Later, in describing the event to police, while being interviewed in his own home, he made certain statements that incriminated him.
The panel is in agreement on affirmance of the conviction. Judge Fahy concludes that the statements objected to were not made at a point in the investigation which brought Thompson within the protection of Miranda. We are in agreement with this conclusion but would also point out that appellant's reliance on Miranda is weakened because of the non-custodial character of the interrogation. It is essential that we not forget the definition in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) of "custodial interrogation." In that opinion, Chief Justice Warren remarked:
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In Allen v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 64, 390 F.2d 476, 479 (1968), we also noted that:
We think some inquiry can be made as part of an investigation notwithstanding limited and brief restraints by the police in their effort to screen crimes from relatively routine mishaps.
We cannot here conclude that the interviewing of appellant by the police amounted to custodial interrogation.
We were faced with a problem similar to that presented here in our recent decision in United States v. Cobb, 146 U. S.App.D.C. 69, 449 F.2d 1145 (1971) where one involved in a crime started out claiming himself to be a victim and wound up later to be a suspect and finally a defendant. In such circumstances we cannot require the police to disbelieve an individual's story which he repeatedly insists is truthful. (Actually appellant still so insists.) In such eases the police are to be commended for fully checking out all leads rather than arriving at a premature conclusion of guilt. Some suspects are absolved when their . story is fully investigated. Some suspects are also good actors and bearing in mind that the police must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they should not be blamed for leaving no stoiie unturned before they arrive at the vary serious decision to charge a person with the commission of a serious felony. They should not be placed in the position of practically being required to accuse every person they interview who has any close knowledge of a crime.
We do not consider that the other points raised necessitate discussion.
Affirmed.
. This is what we meant in Escobedo when we spoke of an investigation which had focused on an accused.