Court Opinion

ID: 9459364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:18:46.055356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:08.352908
License: Public Domain

MARIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I do not think that the charge of the court in this case, to which significantly no objection was made at trial, was given under circumstances similar to those in United States v. Fioravanti, 3 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 407, nor do I believe that the rule of that case should be extended to cover the situation disclosed by this record. In my view the court did not commit reversible error in failing to apprise the defendants, who were represented by retained *612counsel, of their right to separate representation. Nor do I think that the court erred in receiving in evidence the wife-defendant’s admission of ownership of the housedress found in the search of their home since the officers’ request to her to remain seated on the living room, couch during the search, where she was seated when she made the admission, did not in my view, constitute an arrest which would bring into play the rule of the Miranda case.