19 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 52,366 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that law enforcement officers must warn an individual of certain constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving those rights prior to conducting a custodial interrogation
  2. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 2,023 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"
  3. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

    412 U.S. 218 (1973)   Cited 10,830 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search
  4. Rhode Island v. Innis

    446 U.S. 291 (1980)   Cited 5,350 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred
  5. Dickerson v. United States

    530 U.S. 428 (2000)   Cited 1,915 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
  6. Missouri v. Seibert

    542 U.S. 600 (2004)   Cited 1,600 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"
  7. Moran v. Burbine

    475 U.S. 412 (1986)   Cited 3,471 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
  8. North Carolina v. Butler

    441 U.S. 369 (1979)   Cited 2,040 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding they are not
  9. Johnson v. Zerbst

    304 U.S. 458 (1938)   Cited 8,318 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
  10. Duckworth v. Eagan

    492 U.S. 195 (1989)   Cited 589 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court "need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement"