Opinion ID: 196771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: use of self-incriminating statements

Text: 30 The appellant complains that he was not adequately advised of his rights when arrested, and that the court below should have prohibited the government from introducing the statements that he made into evidence. This argument need not detain us. The appellant neither moved to suppress the statements nor objected to their introduction at trial. At best, then, the standard of review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1775, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The plain error hurdle is high: the appellant must show (1) an error, id. at 732, 113 S.Ct. at 1776, that (2) is obvious or clear under current law, id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at 1777, and that (3) affect[ed] substantial rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). 9 31 In this instance there was no error, plain or otherwise. Agent Ayala testified without contradiction that both he and his deputy advised the appellant of his rights before they initiated any interrogation. Thus, the court below had a solid foundation on which to rest the admission of the disputed evidence.