## Facts

- James David Nichols robbed a bank and later surrendered to police.
- After surrendering, Nichols repeatedly said that he wanted an attorney, and officers told him he would receive one.
- Police did not provide counsel and instead placed Nichols in an interview room, where he signed a written waiver form and confessed to the robbery.
- In the confession, Nichols admitted that he carried a pistol in his pocket during the robbery.
- During the interview, Nichols was not physically restrained; the door was open; he was allowed to smoke; and there was no indication of threats, promises, or bargains for cooperation.
- Federal prosecutors charged Nichols with bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and a firearm offense.
- The district court suppressed the confession, concluding that officers violated Miranda by initiating further questioning after Nichols requested counsel.
- Because the suppressed confession was the only evidence that Nichols possessed a gun, the government dismissed the armed-bank-robbery and firearm counts.
- Nichols pleaded guilty to the remaining bank-robbery count.
- At sentencing, the government sought a firearm-related guideline increase based on Nichols’s admission that he had a pistol.
- The district court refused to consider the suppressed confession for sentencing and declined to apply the firearm-related increase.
- The United States appealed the sentence to the Fourth Circuit.

## Issues

1. May a sentencing court consider a defendant’s voluntary statement that was obtained in violation of Miranda (and suppressed for trial) when deciding whether to apply a firearm-related increase under the Sentencing Guidelines?

## Decision

- Yes. The Fourth Circuit held that a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda may be considered at sentencing.
- The court ruled that the district court erred by treating the Miranda violation as a categorical bar to using Nichols’s admission for sentencing.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated Nichols’s sentence and remanded for resentencing so the district court could consider the confession in determining whether the firearm-related guideline increase applies.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda’s exclusionary rule is a prophylactic rule governing the admissibility of statements at trial; it does not automatically bar all uses of a statement in later stages of a criminal case.
- Due process bars the use of involuntary confessions; voluntariness is the key constitutional limit when a court considers statements at sentencing.
- Sentencing courts may consider a broad range of reliable information, including evidence that might be inadmissible at trial, unless a specific constitutional prohibition applies.
- A voluntary statement taken without proper Miranda procedures may be used to find facts relevant to sentencing (such as possession of a firearm during the offense).
- Appellate review of whether the Constitution permits consideration of such a statement at sentencing is a legal question reviewed de novo.

## Conclusion

United States v. Nichols holds that, in the Fourth Circuit, a voluntary confession obtained after police violated Miranda (by continuing interrogation after a request for counsel) may still be considered at sentencing to support a firearm-related guideline increase, even though it is inadmissible in the government’s case-in-chief at trial; the court therefore vacated Nichols’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.


United States v. Nichols, 438 F.3d 437 (2006)