Case 1 PC V. State Cases and Related Materials
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 1 PC v. State Cases and Related Materials U.S. Const. amend. IV U.S. Const. amend. V Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Amendment IV. Searches and Seizures; Warrants, USCA CONST Amend. IV-Search... United States Code Annotated Constitution of the United States Annotated Amendment IV. Searches and Seizures; Warrants U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV-Search and Seizure; Warrants Amendment IV. Searches and Seizures; Warrants Currentness The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. <Historical notes and references are included in the full text document for this amendment.> <For Notes of Decisions, see separate documents for this amendment.> U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV-Search and Seizure; Warrants, USCA CONST Amend. IV-Search and Seizure; Warrants Current through P.L. 115-68. End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Amendment V. Grand Jury Indictment for Capital Crimes;..., USCA CONST Amend.... United States Code Annotated Constitution of the United States Annotated Amendment V. Grand Jury; Double Jeopardy; Self-Incrimination; Due Process; Takings U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. V full text Amendment V. Grand Jury Indictment for Capital Crimes; Double Jeopardy; Self-Incrimination; Due Process of Law; Takings without Just Compensation Currentness No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. <Historical notes and references are included in the full text document for this amendment.> <For Notes of Decisions, see separate documents for clauses of this amendment:> <USCA Const. Amend. V--Grand Jury clause> <USCA Const. Amend. V--Double Jeopardy clause> <USCA Const. Amend. V--Self-Incrimination clause> <USCA Const. Amend. V-- Due Process clause> <USCA Const. Amend. V--Takings clause> U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. V full text, USCA CONST Amend. V full text Current through P.L. 115-68. End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 36 O.O.2d 237... Warren, held that statements obtained from defendants during incommunicado interrogation in police-dominated KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment atmosphere, without full warning of constitutional rights, Superseded by Statute as Stated in U.S. v. Dickerson, 4th Cir.(Va.), were inadmissible as having been obtained in violation of February 8, 1999 Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 86 S.Ct. 1602 Supreme Court of the United States Judgments in first three cases reversed and judgment in Ernesto A. MIRANDA, Petitioner, fourth case affirmed. v. Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice STATE OF ARIZONA. White dissented; Mr. Justice Clark dissented in part. Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK. Carl Calvin WESTOVER, Petitioner, West Headnotes (82) v. UNITED STATES. [1] Federal Courts STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, Criminal matters v. Certiorari was granted in cases involving Roy Allen STEWART. admissibility of defendants' statements to police to explore some facets of problems of Nos. 759—761, 584. applying privilege against self-incrimination | to in-custody interrogation and to give Argued Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966. concrete constitutional guidelines for law | enforcement agencies and courts to follow. Decided June 13, 1966. | 250 Cases that cite this headnote Rehearing Denied No. 584 Oct. 10, 1966. See 87 S.Ct. 11. [2] Criminal Law Compelling Self-Incrimination Criminal Law Criminal prosecutions. The Superior Court, Maricopa Right of Defendant to Counsel County, Arizona, rendered judgment, and the Supreme Constitutional rights to assistance of counsel Court of Arizona, 98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721, affirmed. and protection against self-incrimination were The Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, rendered secured for ages to come and designed to judgment, and the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, approach immortality as nearly as human Second Department, 21 A.D.2d 752, 252 N.Y.S.2d 19, institutions can approach it. U.S.C.A.Const. affirmed, as did the Court of Appeals of the State Amends. 5, 6. of New York at 15 N.Y.2d 970, 259 N.Y.S.2d 857, 207 N.E.2d 527. The United States District Court for 23 Cases that cite this headnote the Northern District of California, Northern Division, rendered judgment, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 342 F.2d 684, affirmed. [3] Criminal Law The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, Custodial interrogation in general rendered judgment and the Supreme Court of California, Prosecution may not use statements, whether 62 Cal.2d 571, 43 Cal.Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97, reversed. exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from In the first three cases, defendants obtained certiorari, custodial interrogation of defendant unless and the State of California obtained certiorari in the it demonstrates use of procedural safeguards fourth case. The Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 36 O.O.2d 237... effective to secure privilege against self- waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and incrimination. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. intelligently. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 6. 3797 Cases that cite this headnote 1147 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Criminal Law [7] Criminal Law What Constitutes Custody Counsel Criminal Law There can be no questioning if defendant What Constitutes Interrogation indicates in any manner and at any stage “Custodial interrogation”, within rule of interrogation process that he wishes limiting admissibility of statements stemming to consult with attorney before speaking. from such interrogation, means questioning U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 6. initiated by law enforcement officers after 374 Cases that cite this headnote person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. [8] Criminal Law 5. Right to remain silent Police may not question individual if he is 4519 Cases that cite this headnote alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. [5] Criminal Law Right to remain silent 127 Cases that cite this headnote Criminal Law Right to counsel [9] Criminal Law Criminal Law Counsel Use of statement Mere fact that accused may have answered Unless other fully effective means are devised some questions or volunteered some to inform accused person of the right to statements on his own does not deprive him silence and to assure continuous opportunity of right to refrain from answering any further to exercise it, person must, before any inquiries until he has consulted with attorney questioning, be warned that he has right to and thereafter consents to be questioned. remain silent, that any statement he does make U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 6. may be used as evidence against him, and that 248 Cases that cite this headnote he has right to presence of attorney, retained or appointed. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. [10] Criminal Law 1033 Cases that cite this headnote Coercion Criminal Law [6] Criminal Law Force; physical abuse Right to remain silent Coercion can be mental as well as physical and Criminal Law blood of accused is not the only hallmark of Counsel unconstitutional inquisition. U.S.C.A.Const. Criminal Law Amend. 5. In general; right to appear pro se 31 Cases that cite this headnote Defendant may waive effectuation of right to counsel and to remain silent, provided that [11] Criminal Law © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 36 O.O.2d 237... Coercion 86 Cases that cite this headnote Incommunicado interrogation of individuals in police-dominated atmosphere, while not physical intimidation, is equally destructive [16] Criminal Law of human dignity, and current practice is Compelling Self-Incrimination at odds with principle that individual may Individual swept from familiar surroundings not be compelled to incriminate himself. into police custody, surrounded by U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. antagonistic forces and subjected to techniques of persuasion employed by police, 327 Cases that cite this headnote cannot be otherwise than under compulsion to speak. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. [12] Criminal Law Compelling Self-Incrimination 42 Cases that cite this headnote Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private [17] Arrest enclave where he may lead private life.