Court Opinion

ID: 9474129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:48:51.655787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:55.193418
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the double jeopardy analysis set forth in the majority opinion. In particular, I agree that the collateral estoppel doctrine set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), applies only to prior acquittals and does not apply to prior convictions.
However, I do not agree with the majority opinion’s analysis of the admissibility of the taped conversation between Flittie and Harris. In my opinion admission of this conversation violated Flittie’s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). I therefore join the dissenting opinions of Judge Heaney and Judge Arnold on this issue.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus.