U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Irene Rubio Garcia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 3, 1970 · Jertberg, Ely, Huf-Stedler

431 F.2d 134 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Barry Tarlow (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., J. Kent Steele, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Duckworth v. Eagan (Supreme Court of the United States 1989)
Gary James Eagan v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden (7th Cir. 1988)
Jesse De La Rosa v. State of Texas (5th Cir. 1984)
United States v. McCarty (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2011)
United States v. Walter J. Connell, Jr. (9th Cir. 1989)
United States of America Ex Rel. James v. Placek v. State of Illinois (7th Cir. 1976)
In re Guyette for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (District Court, D. Nevada 1972)
State Of Washington, V. Tony Rico Sanders (Wash. Ct. App. 2025)
State v. Mayer (Wash. 2015)
State v. Mayer (Wash. 2015)
State v. Mayer (Wash. 2015)
Rush v. State (Md. 2008)
State v. Strain (Utah 1989)
People v. Prysock (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)
California v. Prysock (Supreme Court of the United States 1981)
United States v. Raymond Lopez-Diaz (9th Cir. 1980)
State v. Dess (Mont. 1979)
People v. Walters (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
Rowbotham v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1975)
Jones v. State (Wis. 1975)
Wright v. North Carolina Et Al. (Supreme Court of the United States 1974)
Schade v. State (Alaska 1973)
United States of America Ex Rel. Ruben Williams v. John Twomey and Peter Bensinger (7th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Lambert David Noa (9th Cir. 1971)
48924 & 48925 State v. Panagiotou-Scigliano (Idaho Ct. App. 2022)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Garcia appeals from a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 174. Error in admitting Garcia’s inculpatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, compels reversal of her conviction and a remand for a new trial from which those statements will be excluded.

After Garcia was arrested, federal agents repeatedly questioned her. During the course of the interrogation sessions, the agents gave her several different versions of the Miranda bundle of warnings. On no occasion was a warning given fully complying with Miranda. Taken together, the warnings were inconsistent. At one point she was told that she had a right to the presence of counsel “when she answered any questions”; on another, she was told that she could “have an attorney appointed to represent you when you first appear before the U. S. Commissioner or the Court.”

The warnings failed adequately to inform Garcia of her right to counsel before she said a word. “[T]he offer of counsel must be clarion and firm, not one of mere impressionism.” Lathers v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 524, 535. (Accord, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez (9th Cir. 1968) 400 F.2d 593; Gilpin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 638.)

Discussion of the remaining contentions is rendered unnecessary by our disposition of the Miranda issue.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.