Opinion
2:22-cr-00263-JCM-NJK
08-22-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA COLA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET NO. 27)
NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 27, 2023, Defendant Joshua Cola filed a motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement during his custodial interrogation after invoking his right to counsel. Docket No. 27. On October 27, 2022, after being taken into custody, Cola was transported to Downtown Area Command and placed in an interview room. See id. at 3. The officers provided Cola with his rights under Miranda, including that he had a “right to consult with an attorney before questioning.” See id. at 3-4. When Cola indicated that he wanted to speak with an attorney, however, the officers continued with the interrogation. See id. at 4.
On August 8, 2023, the Government filed a notice of non-opposition, indicating that it “does not oppose exclusion, during its case-in-chief, of Cola's recorded statements after the point where he stated, ‘I would like to talk with an attorney, though.' The Government reserves the right to use any of Cola's recorded statements for purposes of impeachment on cross-examination.” Docket No. 38 at 1.
Open lines of communication between the Government and defense counsel are beneficial to everyone involved. Cf. LCR 1-1(b). It is unclear to the Court why motion practice needed to be filed on this issue given the circumstances presented and the Government's non-opposition to the relief sought.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the unopposed motion to suppress Cola's statements made after he invoked his right to speak to counsel be GRANTED. Cf. United States v. Harris, 2007 WL 3010215, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2007).
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).