Opinion ID: 3003685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Schultz’s Statements

Text: Finally, Schultz argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made when his home was searched, because he was not given No. 09-1192 9 his Miranda warning. The government contends that this issue is moot because these statements were the basis of Count Two in the indictment, which was dismissed, and were not otherwise used as evidence. Schultz counters that this issue is not moot because he agreed to proceed by a bench trial with stipulated facts only because the district court had denied his motion to suppress (as well as denying his other motions). Appellant’s Reply Br. at 6. Schultz fails to present any evidence that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid, nor do the evidentiary and factual stipulations made by the parties appear improper. In addition, we find that Schultz fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his statements, as the government did not use them at trial. Accordingly, we find no merit to his argument.