U.S. v. Sturdivant

In prosecution on charge of interfering with commerce by robbery, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress certain post-arrest inculpatory statements defendant made to police while he was incarcerated. While defendant argued that his statements were product of coercive police tactics and his weakened physical condition, record, which included videotape of defendant’s waiver of his Miranda warnings and his inculpatory statements, did not support defendant’s claim that he was suffering from diabetic side effects at time of confession. Moreover, defendant made no incriminatory statements on day he claimed he was suffering from diabetic side effects, and defendant confirmed on videotape that he was feeling “alright” and that he understood what was going on. Fact that police officer made false representation about existence of defendant’s DNA did not render instant inculpatory statements involuntary.