Opinion ID: 610154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sixth Amendment Objection

Text: 16 The last issue raised on appeal by Shipp concerns the statement he gave to Special Agent Veal of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Shipp claims his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when Veal questioned Shipp in the absence of Shipp's lawyer for his state case. There is no evidence in the record that Shipp in fact had a lawyer for his state case, only the statements by his lawyer for the federal charge. There also is no evidence that Veal knew Shipp had a lawyer; Veal testified that he did not know if Shipp had a lawyer for the state case. Shipp never told Veal he had a lawyer when he spoke with him on January 8, and Shipp waived his right to an attorney after having been given Miranda warnings. 17 The district court admitted Shipp's statement because he found Veal did not know if Shipp had a lawyer and because Shipp failed to tell Veal if he had a lawyer before waiving his right to have a lawyer present. The court found no other basis for excluding the statement. 18 The district court's denial of the motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous. Shipp had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the time he was questioned by Veal either because of the fact that he may have had a lawyer for his state case or based upon the federal complaint and arrest warrant. There is no evidence that Shipp had a lawyer which Veal knew and disregarded before obtaining Shipp's waiver. And Shipp's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet begun although the questioning was after a criminal complaint and arrest warrant had been obtained but before any preliminary hearing. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190 (1984) (dictum); United States v. Langley, 848 F.2d 152, 153 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 897 (1988); United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1311-12 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1011 (1988); United States v. Duvall, 537 F.2d 15, 22 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 950 (1976). The government proved Shipp's waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation was knowingly and intentionally done. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966).