U.S. v. Jackson

In prosecution on sex-trafficking, child pornography and cyberstalking charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to police officer during his first interview, even though defendant argued that officer violated his right to counsel under Miranda when earlier during said interview, defendant told officer that he would “rather have a lawyer, and yet officer continued questioning him. While defendant’s statement that he would “rather have a lawyer” invoked his Miranda rights, record also showed that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived said rights, when: (1) he immediately initiated further communications with officer by asking about his warrant and charges against him; (2) officer several times informed defendant that he did not have to talk to him; and (3) defendant then stated "I understand that” and “of course I’m willing to talk to you” prior to making incriminating statements. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that officer provoked him into making incriminating statements and further noted that, even without said statements, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Dist. Ct. also did not err in denying defendant’s request to give limiting instruction regarding admission of voicemails containing evidence of witness intimidation by defendant, where voicemails constituted direct evidence on charged offenses, so as to preclude any application of Rule 404(b).