Opinion ID: 213502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ware’s Second Claim

Text: Statements made in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, are not admissible at trial. 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). Ware asserts that his post-arrest statements to two police officers were inadmissible because the government made no showing that he was informed of his Miranda rights prior to talking to each of the officers. But even assuming that Ware was not given the Miranda warnings, he has not shown that, in the context of the trial, any alleged Miranda error affected his substantial rights. Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1307. Ware’s statements were one piece of evidence in a trial which produced other strong evidence of guilt. Further, Ware chose to testify, he had the opportunity to explain and defend any statements made to the officers, and the jury was free to believe or disbelieve him. See United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2007). Ware has not shown that any possible Miranda error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings, and therefore Ware did not meet the third prong of the difficult 11 plain error test.1