Opinion ID: 758679
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Murga's Statements

Text: 188 After a two-day evidentiary hearing the district court entered a comprehensive, seven-page order denying Murga's motion to suppress her statements to law enforcement officers. In response to the district court's detailed findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of Murga's confession and waiver of her Miranda rights, Murga states in her brief only that her custodial statements were not truly voluntary because they resulted from improper inducements and continuing interrogation by numerous law enforcement officers and agents. (Murga's brief at 30 n.55) Murga's brief contains no argument or discussion of the facts explaining why the district court's findings were incorrect, and she does not even present an argument as to what improper inducements were made. Although Murga cites documents filed in the district court by prior counsel, Murga cannot satisfy the requirements of Fed. R App. P. 28(a)(5) by merely referring to briefing filed with the district court. We conclude that Murga has waived this point of error because her brief fails to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(5) and (6). 189