§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SAUCEDA-CONTRERAS

Respondent's Petition for Review

26 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 2,848 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. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,461 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. 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 "

  5. 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

  6. Davis v. United States

    512 U.S. 452 (1994)   Cited 3,046 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the suspect must unambiguously request counsel."

  7. 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

  8. Michigan v. Mosley

    423 U.S. 96 (1975)   Cited 2,290 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a statement made after the suspect's invocation of his Miranda rights admissible when questioning resumed “only after the passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of warnings,” and the second interrogation was restricted “to a crime that had not been a subject of the earlier interrogation”

  9. Smith v. Illinois

    469 U.S. 91 (1984)   Cited 1,119 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding statement "Uh, yeah, I'd like to do that" upon learning of the right to counsel was unambiguous

  10. Duckworth v. Eagan

    492 U.S. 195 (1989)   Cited 721 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court "need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement"

  11. Section 831 - Art. 31. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited

    10 U.S.C. § 831   Cited 74 times

    (a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any question the answer to which may tend to incriminate him. (b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by

  12. 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