Opinion ID: 65764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Incriminating Statement

Text: Gordon argues that the court erred by allowing Green to testify regarding the statement Gordon made during their telephone conversation because Green did not give any Miranda warnings before taking the statement. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Garcia, 447 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2006). To the extent that the district court’s determination involves questions of law, however, we review those questions of law de novo. United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 1997). Gordon’s claim fails because the requirements of Miranda only apply to custodial interrogations. United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1148 (11th Cir. 2004). The record establishes that Gordon was not in custody at the time he made the statements at issue. Indeed, Gordon and Green were not even in the same town at the time of their telephone conversation; therefore, Green was not required to 9 give a Miranda warning prior to taking a statement from Gordon.