Opinion ID: 724858
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of the Lewises' Statements.

Text: 69 The Lewises argue that the district court erred by overruling their objections to the adequacy of the advice of rights given to them when they gave statements to investigators. Mr. Lewis asserts that he was not informed that he had a right to a private attorney. Mrs. Lewis claims that she was not advised of her rights until six hours after her initial detention at the hospital, that because of her emotional state she could not comprehend the severity of the situation, that the length of time to give the statement demonstrates the presence of coercion, that she believed the statement had to be given before she could see her son and Jadasha's body, and that she failed to understand the warnings given. 70 The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630-31, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) established the warnings that a defendant must receive in order for his statement to be admissible at trial. The defendant is free to waive the rights conveyed in the warnings if the waiver is done (1) voluntarily and (2) knowingly and intelligently. United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 941, 115 S.Ct. 346, 130 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994). 71 In the present case, the district court held a suppression hearing wherein he heard live testimony from investigators and Mrs. Lewis regarding the warnings given to the defendants. The testimony indicates that the Lewises each received a form containing the customary Miranda warnings. The district court found that the military form given to Mr. Lewis adequately apprised him of his rights and allowed him to knowingly waive his rights. Mrs. Lewis received the FBI Miranda warnings form, which she initialed. Additionally, the district court questioned Mrs. Lewis regarding her statements. 14 The court concluded that Mrs. Lewis understood that she was waiving her rights and voluntarily waived the rights after being adequately advised by an investigator. The district court admitted the statements into evidence after making these determinations. 72 The district court saw the live testimony and was in a position to factor body language into its credibility determinations. Accordingly, with the exception of the voluntary issue, we must accept the district court's factual findings regarding the interrogations unless the findings are clearly erroneous. United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1031, 115 S.Ct. 610, 130 L.Ed.2d 520 (1994). We cannot say that these findings are clearly erroneous based upon the record before us. 73 The issue of voluntariness is a legal question subject to de novo review. Andrews, 22 F.3d at 1340 n. 12. A waiver is voluntary when it is the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Id. at 1337. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Lewises waived their rights because of intimidation, coercion, or deception. We cannot say that the district court erred in denying the Lewises' motions to suppress their statements. 74