United States v. Day
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
789 F.2d 1217 (1986)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Clarence Moore, Johnny Pack, and Delmer Day (defendants) were arrested and tried for various crimes relating to personal-income-tax evasion. However, before Moore was arrested, two law-enforcement agents interviewed him and recorded the interview. The agents told Moore that he was not being criminally investigated and advised him about various legal rights, such as his right to stay silent and to have an attorney present for the interview. During the interview, Moore described himself as an uneducated country boy who was duped and manipulated by Day and Pack. Moore called Day a crook and accused Pack of being the one primarily responsible for the check-conversion part of the tax-evasion scheme. Moore testified at the group trial. Moore’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his interview statements. There was no evidence that Moore had taken an oath and was speaking under penalty of perjury during the recorded interview. But the trial court still allowed the jury to hear parts of the interview recording. Moore was acquitted of all counts, and Day and Pack were convicted on all counts. Day and Pack appealed, arguing that the interview recording should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Krupansky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.