U.S. v. Edgeworth

In prosecution on bank robbery and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest statements, even though defendant asserted that police officers had assaulted him while in custody and physically coerced him into making inculpatory statements. Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying said motion without conducting evidentiary hearing, since defendant’s allegations of police misconduct were not definite and lacked any factual support or explanation. Dist. Ct. also did not abuse its discretion in failing to dismiss juror during voir dire after she declared that she was unavailable for one day of trial due to school-related commitment, where Dist. Ct. had previously concluded that school commitment alone was not enough to meet hardship requirement to be excused for cause. Moreover, defendant waived said issue when his counsel stated at trial that said juror “should stay” when asked by Dist. Ct. whether it should excuse juror.