55 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,230 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Colorado v. Connelly
479 U.S. 157 (1986) Cited 4,816 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 1,989 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"
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,084 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
United States v. Sharpe
470 U.S. 675 (1985) Cited 3,177 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that twenty-minute detention was not unreasonable where the officer pursued the investigation "in a diligent and reasonable manner" and did "not involve any delay unnecessary to the legitimate investigation"
McNeil v. Wisconsin
501 U.S. 171 (1991) Cited 1,800 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is "offense specific," and once invoked, does not automatically apply to all future charges.
Maryland v. Shatzer
559 U.S. 98 (2010) Cited 768 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual can be subject to interrogation after invoking the right to counsel if there is a break in custody of fourteen days or longer
Fare v. Michael C.
442 U.S. 707 (1979) Cited 1,661 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers' remarks to a sixteen-year-old juvenile that a cooperative attitude would be to his benefit were far from threatening or coercive where he was thoroughly informed of his Miranda rights and the officers' questioning was "restrained and free from the abuses that so concerned the Court in Miranda"
Colorado v. Spring
479 U.S. 564 (1987) Cited 1,214 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that suspect need not "know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver"

The People, Appellant,v.Eugene Polhill, Respondent.

55 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the validity of a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence

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"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

Holding that twenty-minute detention was not unreasonable where the officer pursued the investigation "in a diligent and reasonable manner" and did "not involve any delay unnecessary to the legitimate investigation"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is "offense specific," and once invoked, does not automatically apply to all future charges.

Holding that an individual can be subject to interrogation after invoking the right to counsel if there is a break in custody of fourteen days or longer

Holding that suspect need not "know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver"