Court Opinion

ID: 2965105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:28.827665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:05.305843
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1257

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 DENNIS L. DUSSAULT,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edward F. St.Onge on brief for appellant.
            _________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Andrew J.  Reich,
            __________________                               ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 30, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We  have reviewed the  submissions by  the
                 __________

            parties  and the  record  in  this case,  and  we affirm  the

            judgment   of   conviction.      Appellant  Dennis   Dussault

            ("Dussault")  contends statements  he made  to  an ATF  agent

            should not  have been admitted  into evidence, because  1) he

            was never  warned of  his constitutional  rights pursuant  to

            Miranda v. Arizona,  384 U.S. 436 (1966), and  2) his counsel
            __________________

            was  not present  while he  made the statements  in question.

            Neither  argument  has merit.   Miranda  applies only  when a
                                            _______

            suspect  is subjected to a "custodial interrogation."  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Ventura,  85 F.3d 708, 710 (1st  Cir. 1996) (citing
            _________________

            Illinois v.  Perkins, 496  U.S. 292, 297  (1990)).   Under no
            ____________________

            version of the facts could  the exchange between Dussault and

            the ATF  agent be characterized  as an "interrogation."   For

            the  same  reason,  counsel's   absence  during  the  initial

            exchange  between  Dussault  and the  agent  did  not violate

            Dussault's  constitutional rights.   Oregon v.  Bradshaw, 462
                                                 ___________________

            U.S.   1039,   1044-45  (1983)   (counsel's   absence  during

            interrogation  violates  suspect's constitutional  rights  if
            _____________

            suspect has not  knowingly and intelligently waived  right to

            counsel); see  also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499  U.S. 279, 286
                      _________ _____________________

            (1991); 18 U.S.C.   3501(d).

                 Dussault's  remaining points on appeal are waived due to

            the failure  to fully brief  those issues.  United  States v.
                                                        _________________

            Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 621 (1st Cir. 1994).
            ______

                                         -2-

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -3-