52 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,244 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
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Edwards v. Arizona
451 U.S. 477 (1981) Cited 6,423 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel
Colorado v. Connelly
479 U.S. 157 (1986) Cited 4,817 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
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,277 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 1,990 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"
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”
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,085 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
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.
North Carolina v. Butler
441 U.S. 369 (1979) Cited 2,340 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding they are not
Section 24
Cal. Const. art. I § 24 Cited 193 times
Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"

PEOPLE v. SAUCEDA-CONTRERAS

52 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 error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel

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

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

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 protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

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

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

Holding they are not

Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"