Minnesota Lawyer
(1)Where a defendant in a sexual molestation case sought to suppress statements made during an interview with officers on the grounds that the officers continued to question him after he invoked his right to counsel, the defendant’s two requests for counsel were not unequivocal and unconditional, so the district court properly found that his requests were insufficient to invoke his right to counsel, and the court properly denied the motion to suppress.
(2)Where a defendant in a sexual molestation case argued that the district court erred in making his federal sentence consecutive to his undischarged term of civil commitment in Illinois, the inclusion of the challenged language in the judgment did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, so any error was harmless. Judgment is affirmed.
14-1675 U.S. v. Mohr, appealed from the Southern District of Iowa, Beam, J.
