Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

United States of America v. Amado Magallon Guerrero

Date: 03-03-2026

Case Number: 19-cr-00118

Judge: William Lynn Cambell, Jr.

Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Davidson County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Nashville

Defendant's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Nashville Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:
Nashville, Tennessee criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, drug trafficking, and money laundering.

Guerrero's motion to suppress evidence were overruled.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In the seminal decision of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court established procedural safeguards to protect the core of the right against self-incrimination. These safeguards require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights—colloquially known as Miranda warnings—before questioning. These warnings advise individuals that: (1) they have a right to remain silent, (2) anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, (3) they have the right to consult with a lawyer before interrogation and to have the lawyer present during interrogation, and (4) if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them before questioning begins. Id. at 467–73.

Miranda is triggered whenever a person is subjected to custodial interrogation—i.e.,
subject to “express questioning or its functional equivalent.” McKinney v. Hoffner, 830 F.3d
363, 371 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300–01 (1980)); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467–68. The functional equivalent of express questioning means “any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” Innis, 446 U.S. at 301. To protect against encroachments on this right, statements made during custodial interrogation are generally inadmissible “unless the defendant has first been apprized [sic] of the constitutional right against self-incrimination and has validly
waived this right.” United States v. Cole, 315 F.3d 633, 636 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478–79).
C
Outcome:
The Defendant was found guilty.

Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of United States of America v. Amado Magallon Guerrero?

The outcome was: The Defendant was found guilty. Affirmed

Which court heard United States of America v. Amado Magallon Guerrero?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Davidson County), TN. The presiding judge was William Lynn Cambell, Jr..

Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Amado Magallon Guerrero?

Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Nashville. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Nashville Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was United States of America v. Amado Magallon Guerrero decided?

This case was decided on March 3, 2026.