United States v. Merlin H. Suggs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• no interrogation where defendant was shown a copy of his indictment and made a spontaneous exclamation concerning guilt
• “Voluntary incriminating statements, however, not made in response to an officer's questioning are freely admissible.”
• “It is undisputed that in order to be within agency jurisdiction of section 1001, the false statement need not be presented directly to an agency of the United States.”
• voluntary comments unresponsive to police questioning are admissible even after Miranda rights are asserted
• \The fact that a state agency uses federal funds is generally sufficient\ to establish jurisdiction under § 1001. (citing United States v. Baker, 626 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1980) and United States v. Richmond, 700 F.2d 1183, 1187-88 (8th Cir. 1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).