Search for: "California v. Miranda"
Results 301 - 320
of 378
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2010, 10:04 am
Imagine that the first sentence of a contemporary opinion by the California Supreme Court opinion begins with the sentence: "We granted review to decide whether to overrule a 1971 pro-Miranda decision of this Court. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
(United States v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:06 am
Miller (Lewis and Clark), Judith V. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
(Thompson v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 3:45 am
Park, a US District Court decision from California saying they do. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 3:13 am
Back in 1981, in California v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 1:34 am
A reader points out that the above is incorrect because the residency laws are NOT RETROACTIVE per decision: Doe-v-Schwarzenegger 2-22-2007 (Hats off to our reader, proof that the media does a bad job on research) Four registered sex offenders, two of whom live in San Diego County, have challenged the residency restrictions, and their case is before the California Supreme Court. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 7:00 am
" (California v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 6:42 am
In United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 4:42 am
" U.S. v. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 7:07 am
Shatzer, an upcoming Miranda-rights case. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 5:13 pm
City and County of San Francisco, California, et al. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:01 am
Roberts, as Miranda was for Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 11:32 pm
In California v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 4:32 pm
“I can’t recall having read anything quite like it, although it does bring to mind Miranda v. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 3:26 pm
Montejo v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 10:42 am
In this case, docketed as Miranda v Citibank NA, Judge John F. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 9:00 pm
California, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (1994) (per curiam); Berkemer v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 10:16 am
So I hope it comes as no surprise to anyone that the California Supreme Court unanimously affirms the conviction and death sentence.And if doing so requires the court to hold (as it does here) that the public safety exception to Miranda applies and allows the police to continue to question a suspect -- and use the resulting testimony against him at trial -- even after he's invoked his right to counsel, so be it. [read post]
