Citation network
Solem Vs. Stumes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 29, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 638 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Solem v. StumesSearch
-
U.S. 638 (1984) Solem v. StumesSearch
-
corpus in Federal District Court, which denied the writ. While respondent's appeal was pending, this Court, in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 655 . JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
that once a suspect has invoked the right to counsel, any subsequent conversation must be initiated by him. Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
that the conduct at issue here violated Edwards. We need not decide whether the police also violated Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Nonetheless, retroactive application is not compelled, constitutionally or otherwise. Great Northern R. Co. v. SunburstSearch
-
Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358 , 287 U. S. 364 (1932). Since Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
U. S. 618 (1965), which held that Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. at 381 U. S. 628 . The basic principles of retroactivity in criminal cases were established in Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Page 465 U. S. 643 Johnson v. NewSearch
-
appropriate where a new constitutional principle is designed to enhance the accuracy of criminal trials. See Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. NewSearch
-
as entirely unrelated to the accuracy of the final result as it is in the Fourth Amendment context. See United States v. PeltierSearch
-
Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
cannot be said to be a sine qua non of fair and accurate interrogation. We faced a similar situation in Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
of these is Miranda itself, which was held to apply only to trials taking place after it was decided. Johnson v. NewSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
that goes to the heart of the truthfinding function, which we have consistently held to be retroactive. E.g., Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
Hankerson v. NorthSearch
-
rule, designed to implement preexisting rights. This Court has not applied such decisions retroactively. See Michigan v. PayneSearch
-
Halliday v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
rule. We do not think that the police can be faulted if they did not anticipate its per se approach. Cf. Adams v. IllinoisSearch
-
case-by-case matter, a waiver of the right to counsel had been knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 464 (1938). As we said in North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
U. S. 369 , 441 U. S. 374 -375 (1979), relying on Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
U.S. at 441 U. S. 375 . See also Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
The Miranda majority, 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 475 , viewed the waiver question as controlled by Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
that view by one of the dissenters, 384 U.S. at 384 U. S. 513 -514 (Harlan, J., dissenting). See also Tague v. LouisianaSearch
-
The Court had several times refused to adopt per se rules governing the waiver of Miranda rights. Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
supra. See also Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
The state of the law in the lower courts prior to the Edwards decision bears out this reality. Cf. Michigan v. PayneSearch
-
resume questioning after a defendant has asked for an attorney was acknowledged to be unsettled. See United States v. HernandezSearch
-
United States v. HermanSearch
-
n. 8 (CA5 1977). Some courts prohibited resumption of questioning unless initiated by the suspect. E.g., United States v. WomackSearch
-
United States v. PriestSearch
-
On the other hand, a number of courts allowed renewed interrogations after a request for counsel. E.g., Blasingame v. EstelleSearch
-
White v. FinkbeinerSearch
-
United States v. Rodriguez-GastelumSearch
-
Hill v. WhealonSearch
-
F.2d 629 (CA6 1974). See also United States v. ClarkSearch
-
In Johnson v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Solem v. StumesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial