Citation network
Arizona Vs. Roberson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1988
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. 675 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
U.S. 675 (1988) Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
June 15, 1988 486 U.S. 675 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona Syllabus Edwards V. ArizonaSearch
-
scene of a burglary, and being advised by the arresting officer of his constitutional rights, as declared in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
police-initiated custodial interrogation relating to a separate Page 486 U. S. 676 investigation. Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
and Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
of the case. Page 486 U. S. 677 JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. RouthierSearch
-
right to remain silent and also the right to have an attorney present during any interrogation. See Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
statement. In explaining his ruling, the trial judge relied squarely on the Arizona Supreme Court's opinion in State v. RouthierSearch
-
We now affirm. Page 486 U. S. 680 II A major purpose of the Court's opinion in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
ne of the principal advantages' of Miranda is the ease and clarity of its application. Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
See also New York v. QuarlesSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
emphasized the virtues of a bright-line rule in cases following Edwards as well as Miranda. See Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
Shea v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 1039 , 462 U. S. 1044 (1983) (plurality opinion) (REHNQUIST, J.). In Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
this distinction. We are unpersuaded. Page 486 U. S. 683 Petitioner points to our holding in Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
U.S. at 423 U. S. 103 -104 (quoting Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
J., concurring in result), quoted supra at 486 U. S. 681 . Petitioner points as well to Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
not only from Edwards and Miranda, but also from a case decided the same day as Barrett. In Colorado v. SpringSearch
-
as evidence against him, Spring's willingness to answer questions, without limiting such a waiver, see Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
unless he otherwise states, see Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
there is no reason to assume that a suspect's state of mind is in any way investigation-specific, see Colorado v. SpringSearch
-
supra. Finally, petitioner raises the case of Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
both the crime for which Moulton had already been indicted and a separate, inchoate scheme. Following Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
here from that in Edwards are equally unavailing. Petitioner first relies on the plurality opinion in Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
facts of the second investigation, as long as such communication does not constitute interrogation, see Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
that the suspect himself initiates, Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
s failure to honor that request cannot be justified by the lack of diligence of a particular officer. Cf. Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
Routhier was based on Edwards versus ArizonaSearch
-
See State v. DampierSearch
-
McFadden v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Lofton v. StateSearch
-
State v. NewtonSearch
-
State v. CornethanSearch
-
State v. HarrimanSearch
-
Espinoza v. FairmanSearch
-
Luman v. StateSearch
-
Radovsky v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial