## Facts

- Richmond, Virginia police responded to a domestic disturbance at John Beard’s home.
- An officer learned Beard allegedly threatened his sister with a shotgun and located a sawed-off shotgun in a vehicle.
- An officer went to Beard’s bedroom and indicated Beard should be arrested; there was no evidence Beard or the other officer saw the signal.
- The arresting officer testified he advised Beard of his Miranda rights but did not specify what he said.
- After the asserted warnings, Beard made inculpatory statements, including that he was a convicted felon and possessed the gun for protection.
- At the police station, Beard refused to sign a written rights-waiver form.
- A federal grand jury indicted Beard for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the government carried its burden to prove that Beard received adequate Miranda warnings before his custodial statements, such that suppression was improper.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the government’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing to elicit more detailed testimony about the Miranda warnings.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the suppression order.
- The court held the government failed, on the record made at the suppression hearing, to prove the content and adequacy of the Miranda warnings preceding Beard’s statements.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the evidentiary record to allow the government to supplement its proof.

## Legal Principles

- The government bears the burden to show that Miranda warnings were properly given and that any waiver was knowing and intelligent before custodial statements may be admitted.
- A generic assertion that an officer “advised” a suspect of rights, without testimony establishing the substance of the warnings, may be insufficient to meet the government’s burden.
- A district court has broad discretion to deny a motion to reopen evidence, particularly when the moving party had an adequate opportunity to present the necessary proof at the original hearing and seeks to cure omissions after the fact.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld suppression of Beard’s custodial statements because the government’s sole witness did not provide specific testimony establishing what Miranda warnings were given, and it upheld the district court’s discretionary decision not to reopen the hearing to repair the government’s deficient evidentiary record.


United States v. Beard, 119 F. App’x 462 (4th Cir. 2005)