47 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,240 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
Berkemer v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (1984) Cited 5,539 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "routine" traffic stops are not custodial for Miranda purposes but that if a motorist is "subjected to treatment that renders him ‘in custody’ for practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda "
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,284 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Mincey v. Arizona
437 U.S. 385 (1978) Cited 3,689 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that while statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment if otherwise trustworthy, the Constitution prohibits " any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement"
People v. Mateo
2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,444 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."
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"
Culombe v. Connecticut
367 U.S. 568 (1961) Cited 1,441 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding involuntary the confession extracted from a “thirty-three-year-old mental defective ... with an intelligence quotient of sixty-four”
Rogers v. Richmond
365 U.S. 534 (1961) Cited 1,186 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial court must focus "on the question whether the behavior of the State's law enforcement officials was such as to overbear petitioner's will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined—a question to be answered with complete disregard of whether or not petitioner in fact spoke the truth"
Davis v. North Carolina
384 U.S. 737 (1966) Cited 799 times
Holding that confessions at issue were not freely and voluntarily made and thus were constitutionally inadmissible
People v. Gonzalez
68 N.Y.2d 424 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 984 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.

The People, Respondent,v.Michael Johnson, Appellant.

47 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 "routine" traffic stops are not custodial for Miranda purposes but that if a motorist is "subjected to treatment that renders him ‘in custody’ for practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda "

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that while statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment if otherwise trustworthy, the Constitution prohibits " any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement"

Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."

Holding involuntary the confession extracted from a “thirty-three-year-old mental defective ... with an intelligence quotient of sixty-four”

Holding that confessions at issue were not freely and voluntarily made and thus were constitutionally inadmissible

In People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.