130 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,290 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
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,289 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Oregon v. Elstad
470 U.S. 298 (1985) Cited 2,921 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that Fifth Amendment Miranda violations do not require that fruits of otherwise voluntary statements be suppressed as tainted
Chavez v. Martinez
538 U.S. 760 (2003) Cited 1,249 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights
United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975) Cited 2,134 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection
Harris v. New York
401 U.S. 222 (1971) Cited 2,514 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination
Estelle v. Smith
451 U.S. 454 (1981) Cited 1,564 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that a psychiatrist's testimony about the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital felony trial violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before his psychiatric examination
Kastigar v. United States
406 U.S. 441 (1972) Cited 2,163 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"
United States v. Martinez-Salazar
528 U.S. 304 (2000) Cited 761 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a defendant elects to cure the erroneous refusal to dismiss a potential juror for cause “by exercising a peremptory challenge, and is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat, he has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right”
Williams v. Florida
399 U.S. 78 (1970) Cited 1,364 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a conviction by a six-member jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,409 times 688 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 2
Cal. Const. art. I § 2 Cited 476 times
Restricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”
Section 30
Cal. Const. art. I § 30 Cited 87 times
Authorizing joinder in criminal cases
Rule 8.264 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision
Cal. R. 8.264 Cited 509 times
(a)Filing the decision (1) The clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly file all opinions and orders of the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (2) A decision by opinion must identify the participating justices, including the author of the majority opinion and of any concurring or dissenting opinion, or the justices participating in a "by the court" opinion. (Subd (a) amended effective January
Rule 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 times
(a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

MALDONADO v. S.C. (PEOPLE)

130 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 “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that Fifth Amendment Miranda violations do not require that fruits of otherwise voluntary statements be suppressed as tainted

Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights

Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection

Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination

Holding that a psychiatrist's testimony about the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital felony trial violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before his psychiatric examination

Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"

Holding that if a defendant elects to cure the erroneous refusal to dismiss a potential juror for cause “by exercising a peremptory challenge, and is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat, he has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right”

Holding a conviction by a six-member jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Restricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”

Authorizing joinder in criminal cases