From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
United States v. LeBrun
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
363 F.3d 715 (2004)
Michael LeBrun (defendant) and Ensign Andrew Muns worked in the disbursing office aboard a United States Navy ship during the Vietnam War. Muns disappeared from the ship in 1968 while the ship was moored overseas. The Navy’s investigation concluded that Muns had stolen $8,600 from the ship’s safe and deserted with the money. Muns was never heard from again. Thirty years later, Muns’s sister convinced the Navy to reopen the investigation. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents soon narrowed the investigation to LeBrun as their prime suspect. LeBrun cooperated during four interviews with NCIS agents in the fall of 1999 and was read his Miranda rights during three of those interviews. LeBrun was brought in for another interview in September 2000. LeBrun came voluntarily to the police station and was not given a Miranda warning but understood that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time. Two NCIS agents interviewed LeBrun and told him that he was the prime suspect in Muns’s disappearance. The NCIS agents did not threaten LeBrun or use any physical intimidation but used psychological ploys to get LeBrun to confess. The agents intimated to LeBrun that it was possible he would not be prosecuted if he confessed because of a statute-of-limitation issue. The agents also stated that a criminal investigation without a confession would be financially and emotionally damaging to LeBrun’s family. After 33 minutes, LeBrun confessed that he had strangled Muns after Muns found him attempting to steal money from the office and that he had hidden Muns’s body and the money in a barrel of fuel oil. LeBrun was charged with felony murder. LeBrun moved to suppress his confession, arguing that it had been obtained in violation of his due-process rights. The district court suppressed the confession on these grounds. The government (plaintiff) appealed, and a divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the judgment. The government’s petition for a rehearing en ban was granted.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hansen, J.)
Dissent (Arnold, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.