Citation network
Oregon Vs. Bradshaw
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1983
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 1039 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
U.S. 1039 (1983) Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
that therefore the statements growing out of this conversation should have been excluded from evidence under Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
statements by the respondent growing out of that conversation should have been excluded from evidence under Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Police Station for questioning. Once at the station, respondent was advised of his rights as required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
denied, and he was found guilty after a bench trial. The Oregon Court of Appeals, relying on our decision in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
rights, the accused may himself validly waive his rights and respond to interrogation, See North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
officers in the manner in which the defendant in Edwards was. We recently restated the requirement in Wyrick v. FieldsSearch
-
U.S. at 451 U. S. 486 , n. 9 (emphasis added). This rule was reaffirmed earlier this Term in Wyrick v. FieldsSearch
-
U. S. 369 , 441 U. S. 374 -375 (1979) (quoting Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 464 (1938)). See also Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
It is so ordered. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in the judgment. The Court's recent decision in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
is still necessary to establish, as a separate matter, the existence of a knowing and intelligent waiver under Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Compare Fields v. WyrickSearch
-
United States v. ThiermanSearch
-
State v. WillieSearch
-
State v. McCloskeySearch
-
Giacomazzi v. StateSearch
-
Richardson v. StateSearch
-
State v. AcquinSearch
-
Leuschner v. StateSearch
-
State v. ScottSearch
-
test, rather than per se rule). See also Wilson v. ZantSearch
-
in Fourth Amendment cases, to draw lines that were too refined to be applied consistently. Last Term, in United States v. RossSearch
-
in Robbins v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 420 (1981), and some of the language in Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Because, in my view, the plurality has misapplied Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 477 (1981), I respectfully dissent. I In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
decision in Edwards, the lower courts have had no difficulty in identifying such situations. See, e.g., McCree v. HousewrightSearch
-
State v. BrezeeSearch
-
Payne v. StateSearch
-
People v. ThomasSearch
-
State v. PittmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
See North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
Richardson v. StateSearch
-
Wilson v. ZantSearch
-
Robbins v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
I In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
McCree v. HousewrightSearch
-
United States v. RossSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial