Citation network
Edwards Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 477 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. 477 (1981) Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
After being arrested on a state criminal charge, and after being informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
arrested at his home later that same day. At the police station, he was informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
against him at his trial violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Page 451 U. S. 481 II In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 464 (1938). See Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to the necessity to find Edwards' confession knowing and intelligent, the State Supreme Court cited Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Miranda rights, the accused may himself validly waive his rights and respond to interrogation, see North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
U.S. at 384 U. S. 474 . Our later cases have not abandoned that view. In Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
see also id. at 423 U. S. 109 -111 (WHITE, J., concurring). In Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
that Edwards invoked, and there would be no occasion to determine whether there had been a valid waiver. Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
it is clear that Edwards was subjected to custodial interrogation on January 20 within the meaning of Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
The case was State v. TravisSearch
-
deprived him of his right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed and applied in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
was formally charged, the State in its supplemental brief and during oral argument took the position that under Kirby v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 682 , 406 U. S. 689 -690 (1972), and Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
the defendant for trial. Rule 5.3. Against this background and in support of its position, the State relies on Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
when the ensuing preliminary hearing occurred. Moore, supra, at 434 U. S. 228 . Cf. United States v. DuvallSearch
-
In Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 387 (1977), where, as in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
counsel had been engaged or appointed and the admissions in question were elicited in his absence. But in McLeod v. OhioSearch
-
that a valid waiver of an accused's previously invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel is possible. See, e.g., White v. FinkbeinerSearch
-
Kennedy v. FairmanSearch
-
United States v. Rodriguez-GastelumSearch
-
cert. denied, 436 U.S. 919 (1978). See generally Cobbs v. RobinsonSearch
-
F.2d 942 (CA4 1977), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Whitehead v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HauckSearch
-
right to counsel has been clearly invoked unless the accused initiates the renewed contact. See, e.g., United States v. MasseySearch
-
F.2d 300 (1977), United States v. PriestSearch
-
F.2d 491 (1969). Waiver is possible, however, when the request for counsel is equivocal. Nash v. EstelleSearch
-
F.2d 513 (CA5 1979) (en banc). See Thompson v. WainwrightSearch
-
the events of January 20 been the first and only interrogation to which Edwards had been subjected. Cf. North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
concur only in the judgment, because I do not agree that either any constitutional standard or the holding of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
of a person in custody is somehow evil per se has been rejected. Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
of a voluntary waiver, and that inquiry should be resolved under the traditional standards established in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
as I found to be the situation in both Innis, supra, at 446 U. S. 304 (concurring opinion), and Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.' Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
II In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial