Citation network
Smith Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 10, 1984
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. 91 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 91 (1984) Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
after his arrest for armed robbery, petitioner was taken to an interrogation room and read his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
has been made available to him unless he validly waives his earlier request for the assistance of counsel. Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
and that Page 469 U. S. 92 the trial court's refusal to suppress the confession therefore violated Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 95 available to him, unless he validly waives his earlier request for the assistance of counsel Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
This 'rigid' prophylactic rule, Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
inquiries. First, courts must determine whether the accused actually invoked his right to counsel. See, e.g., Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he had invoked. Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
that all questioning must cease after an accused requests counsel. Solem v. StumesSearch
-
accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel's assistance. Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
We have repeatedly emphasized this restraint on police interrogation. In addition to Edwards, see also Solem v. StumesSearch
-
U. S. 638 , 465 U. S. 646 -647 (1984), Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
Cf. Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
questioning must cease upon any request for or reference to counsel, however equivocal or ambiguous. See, e.g., People v. SuperiorSearch
-
Ochoa v. StateSearch
-
and have held that requests falling below this threshold do not trigger the right to counsel. See, e.g., People v. KruegerSearch
-
the earlier statement and the accused's desires respecting counsel. See, e.g., Thompson v. WainwrightSearch
-
F.2d 768, 771-772 (CA5 1979), State v. MouldsSearch
-
requires that questioning cease until counsel has been provided. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
with the proscriptions of Edwards and Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
N.E.2d at 242. The interrogation here bore a substantial similarity to the one condemned in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
that the Edwards safeguard was designed to prevent. See Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
that is no more demonstrably correct than that reached by the Illinois courts. There is no dispute that Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
lasting less than five minutes -- cannot be considered by the trier of fact. Page 469 U. S. 102 Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Id. at 451 U. S. 482 . Our other cases applying Edwards, Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
U. S. 1039 (1983), and Solem v. StumesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
People v. SuperiorSearch
-
People v. KruegerSearch
-
Thompson v. WainwrightSearch
-
State v. MouldsSearch
-
of Edwards and Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
See Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
Edwards, Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
and Solem v. StumesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial