Motion to Suppress Incriminating Statements

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Khalil Jackson

Case No.: 21-2811

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Hamilton and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Motion to Suppress Incriminating Statements

A jury found defendant-appellant Khalil Jackson guilty on charges of sex-trafficking a minor (“Jane Doe”), child pornography, and cyberstalking. On appeal Jackson seeks a new trial on two grounds. First, he contends the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to police in his first interview with them. Each of the challenged statements were made after Defendant was Mirandized. While Defendant indicated prior to this point that he would “rather have a lawyer,” even if that statement invoked his right to counsel, subsequent re-initiation of the conversation by Defendant waived his right to counsel. Second, he contends he was entitled to a jury instruction limiting the use of voicemails in which he threatened Doe and her family. These statements were “other acts” admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).

Affirmed.

Decided 06/16/23

Full Text