Opinion ID: 54075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grand Jury and Trial Testimony

Text: While represented by his retained lawyer, Karen Meeks, Paige testified in February 2003 before the grand jury in the criminal case against Jeffrey Bouyie and during Bouyie’s May 2003 trial. Paige did not enter into a proffer agreement or a plea agreement before giving this testimony. Paige now argues that Meeks’s representation of him during this time was so deficient that he essentially was unrepresented and that the government violated due process by obtaining incriminating statements from him during his testimony.4 Paige also asserts that the district court should have suppressed his testimony because he was not read his Miranda rights before he testified. We conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress Paige’s grand jury testimony and testimony during Bouyie’s trial. Paige does not allege that the government coerced his testimony before the grand jury or at trial. See United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the Fifth Amendment prohibits use of involuntary confessions at a criminal 4 We note that it does not appear that Paige is raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal. 6 trial and that the voluntariness inquiry focuses “on whether the defendant was coerced by the government into making the statement”). In addition, Paige fails to cite to authority stating that a witness before a grand jury or at a trial must receive Miranda warnings.5 Although Paige asserts that “in hindsight[, he] would not have given any statements because they were not in his best interest,” we are not convinced that the district court erred in denying Paige’s motion to suppress his testimony statements.