United States of America v. Sam Dexter Parham, Jr.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0812n.06
No. 13-5516
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAM DEXTER PARHAM, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
OPINION
BEFORE: MOORE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges, and HELMICK, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. This appeal presents a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant
Sam Parham’s motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment
rights. Parham entered into a conditional plea of guilty, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). This
plea preserved Parham’s right to withdraw his guilty plea if he prevailed on appellate review of the
motion to suppress.
The sole issue raised is whether the district court acted impermissibly when it shifted the
burden of proof onto the defendant Parham to show that Miranda warnings were given to him. Both
the government and Parham are in agreement that an improper shifting occurred. We concur.
The Honorable Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of*
Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13-5516
United States v. Parham
Our case law has made clear that “[i]t is the government’s burden to establish a waiver [of
Miranda rights] by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Adams, 583 F.3d 457, 467
(6th Cir. 2009). The burden of proof is the government’s, not the defendant’s. The shifting of the
burden onto the defendant in the present case was in error.
This mistake was not harmless. The government has acknowledged that the “officer was
never directly asked if he administered the Miranda warnings to Parham.” (Appellee’s Mot. for
Remand, p. 6). Nor does our review of the record disclose evidence that the government carried its
burden. Thus, acknowledging the district court improperly shifted the burden and finding the
government did not demonstrate that Parham was advised of his Miranda rights, we VACATE the
order denying suppression of Parham’s statement and GRANT the government’s motion to remand.
On remand, the district court shall allow Parham, at his prerogative, to withdraw his guilty plea, and
shall otherwise undertake further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
- 2 -

-- 2 of 2 --