7 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 51,730 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 1,938 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. Davis v. United States

    512 U.S. 452 (1994)   Cited 2,537 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not a request for counsel
  4. Smith v. Illinois

    469 U.S. 91 (1984)   Cited 959 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suspect's "responses to further interrogation [after unambiguously requesting counsel] may not be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of the initial request"
  5. People v. Williams

    49 Cal.4th 405 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 796 times
    In Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th 405, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 233 P.3d 1000, we specifically addressed the question whether police may seek clarification when a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal request for the assistance of counsel at the initial stage of an interrogation, prior to any waiver of Miranda rights, as occurred here.
  6. In re Manuel G

    16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 365 times
    In Manuel G., supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 821, the California Supreme Court provided the following guidelines for distinguishing between consensual encounters and detentions: "The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a detention does not occur when a police officer merely approaches an individual on the street and asks a few questions. [Citation.] As long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his or her business, the encounter is consensual, and no reasonable suspicion is required on the part of the officer.
  7. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 12 times

    (a) In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8