Court Opinion

ID: 9458359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:50:28.901684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:44.670335
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING IN BANC
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD, KAUFMAN, HAYS, FEIN-BERG, MANSFIELD, MULLIGAN, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We ordered rehearing in banc to resolve what appeared to be a difference of view whether a sentence in the majority opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-474, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1627, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease,” required that interrogation must cease forever (save for the instance mentioned in fn. 44), or whether Miranda allowed renewal in proper circumstances. As a result of study of the addi*802tional briefs submitted by the parties and further discussion, we are agreed that what Miranda requires is that “interrogation must cease” until new and adequate warnings have been given and there is a reasonable basis for inferring that the suspect has voluntarily' changed his mind.
While there remains a difference of opinion among us whether that test was met here, we would not have directed rehearing in banc merely to resolve a question of fact in a particular case. The considerations against doing this are of special force in this case, since, due to the fact that the points stressed at the suppression hearing were delay in arraignment and involuntariness in the traditional sense, we lack the benefit of findings by the district judge on the factual question now at issue. Indeed the Miranda point was raised only tangentially even in the briefs to the panel in this court.
We therefore vacate the order for rehearing in banc as improvidently granted. Although the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), makes clear that Senior Judge Lumbard, a member of the panel, is “competent to sit” on the in banc court, we are uncertain whether he can participate in a decision to revoke in banc consideration, as he clearly would not have been entitled to vote for or against it. While he approves the action here taken, his vote is not required for the result; he has consequently abstained from participating in the decision.