A murder suspect's request that he not talk to police anymore until he spoke with a lawyer was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, the state's top court ruled Tuesday. The Court of Appeals granted Warren Lee Ballard a new trial Tuesday because a detective pushed him to keep talking after he had asked for an attorney, violating his right to counsel established in Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny.
Understanding the source of voting changes by appellate judges provides an important window into the factors that shape the votes of the judges more generally. We argue that membership changes, by altering the collegial context in which judges make their choices, affect the information environment, long-term collegial considerations, and short-term strategic calculations. As a result, membership change should lead to greater uncertainty and more frequent voting changes among continuing justices in the term following a replacement. We test this proposition by looking at vote change by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate analyses: justices' votes on search-and-seizure cases since Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and on the progeny of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Our results support the ar...
Trial court did not err in overruling motion to suppress. Motion was addressed exclusively to the lawfulness of the initial stop of the defendant, and the police officer had sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify an investigative stop. Furthermore, evidence supported trial courts conclusion that incriminating statement was obtained after proper warnings were given under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Affirmed.
AS with many Americans, my first lesson in U.S. jurisprudence centered on four lines read to every criminal suspect when they are arrested. "You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. These lines are not in the Constitution, but come from the U.S. Supreme Court's historic Miranda v. Arizona decision in 1966. Now, these four phrases are often referred to as Miranda warnings.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its just-wrapped-up term granted certiorari in a case about an individual's right to an attorney during custodial police interrogations. The issue presented may lead the court to modify its 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona and conclude so-called Miranda warnings no longer are necessary.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
safety devices in vehicles | Dennis Holt | pancreatic cancer | Atlantic Super Market S.A. | Keith Oliver | movilidad laboral canada | cassation chambre sociale | Cumplimiento de la pena | franco gerratana | Consumo alimentare
