U.S. v. Wallace

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in failing to exclude defendant’s inculpatory statement made to DEA agent in defendant’s home even though defendant was in custody and had not been given Miranda warning at time of statement. Record showed that defendant had initiated his statement without prior solicitation by DEA agent. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting videotape of controlled purchase between defendant and informant, even though informant did not testify; no confrontation clause violation occurred because videotape was not “statement” that could be confronted to test its accuracy, and defendant otherwise had opportunity to challenge reliability of videotape. Dist. Ct. also did not err in denying defendant’s request to appoint new counsel for him, even though defendant argued that communications had broken down with trial counsel. Right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants requiring appointed counsel, and defendant’s only remedy was ineffective assistance of counsel claim.