U.S. v. States

In prosecution on drug and racketeering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress certain post-arrest statements made to police that defendant claimed violated both his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and his 6th Amendment right to counsel. Dist. Ct. could properly believe police officials' claim that defendant was actually given Miranda warnings prior to giving statement so as to defeat any 5th Amendment claim. Moreover, while govt. had filed criminal complaint against defendant prior to his arrest, defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel had not attached at time defendant gave his post-arrest statement since mere filing of federal complaint was insufficient to trigger defendant's right to counsel. Ct. alternatively found that defendant had waived any 6th Amendment right to counsel when defendant received his Miranda warnings and then subsequently agreed to give statement.