From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
May 14, 2001
532 U.S. 1034 (2001)

Opinion

MAY 14, 2001


No. 00-8942. BRIDGERS v. TEXAS. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Statement of JUSTICE BREYER, with who, JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE SOUTER join, respecting the denial of the petition for write of certiorari.

After petitioner, Allen Bridgers, was arrested, and prior to his interrogation, two detectives from the Fort Lauderdale Police Department read the following warnings:

"`You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have a right to the presence to an attorney/lawyer prior to any questioning. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney/lawyer, one will be appointed to you before any questioning if you so desire. Do you understand?'" App. to Pet. for Cert. 3.

Bridgers replied that he understood his rights, and that he was not sure whether he wanted an attorney. Bridgers now argues that the warnings were inadequate under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), because they did not explain that he had a right to consult an attorney, not only prior to, but also during, questioning.

Although this Court has declined to demand "rigidity in the form of the required warnings," California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 (1981) ( per curiam), the warnings given here say nothing about the lawyers presence during interrogation. For that reason, they apparently leave out an essential Miranda element. 384 U.S., at 470.

Because this Court may deny certiorari for many reasons, our denial expresses no view about the merits of petitioner's claim. And because the police apparently read the warnings from a standard-issue card, I write to make this point explicit. That is to say, if the problem purportedly present here proves to be a recurring one, I believe that it may well warrant this Court's attention.

No. 00-9957 (00A988). SCOTT v. OHIO. Sup.Ct. Ohio. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to JUSTICE STEVENS, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 92 Ohio St.3d 1, 748 N.E.2d 11.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
May 14, 2001
532 U.S. 1034 (2001)
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 14, 2001

Citations

532 U.S. 1034 (2001)

Citing Cases

West v. State

That is to say, if the problem purportedly present here proves to be a recurring one, I believe that it may…

State v. Carlson

Therefore, denial of certiorari should not be taken as a judgment on the merits of the case. See Bridgers v.…