Citation network
Duckworth Vs. Eagan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1989
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. 195 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Duckworth v. EaganSearch
-
U.S. 195 (1989) Duckworth v. EaganSearch
-
that his confession was inadmissible because the first waiver form did not comply with the requirements of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
as respondent did, his right to counsel. P. 492 U. S. 204 . (d) Respondent's reliance on California v. PrysockSearch
-
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that such advice did not comply with the requirements of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Eagan v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 1557. The majority relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States ex rel. Williams v. TwomeySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
any case, he thought that remand was not necessary because the record indicated that this case was covered by Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. at 384 U. S. 476 (emphasis added). See also Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
In California v. PrysockSearch
-
Id. at 453 U. S. 359 . Miranda has not been limited to station house questioning, see Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
Ibid. Here, respondent did just that. Respondent relies, Brief for Respondent 24-29, on language in California v. PrysockSearch
-
language satisfied Miranda. See Wright v. NorthSearch
-
Massimo v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LacySearch
-
State v. SterlingSearch
-
Harrell v. StateSearch
-
Rowbotham v. StateSearch
-
Grennier v. StateSearch
-
Schade v. StateSearch
-
State v. MumbaughSearch
-
People v. CampbellSearch
-
People v. SwiftSearch
-
by a warning that an attorney could not be appointed for a suspect until he appeared in court. See United States v. ContrerasSearch
-
Coyote v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. MaluiaSearch
-
Emler v. StateSearch
-
Jones v. StateSearch
-
language did not satisfy Miranda. See United States ex rel. Williams v. TwomeySearch
-
Gilpin v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. DessSearch
-
Commonwealth v. JohnsonSearch
-
Square v. StateSearch
-
Petitioner does not argue, and we therefore need not decide, whether Stone v. PowellSearch
-
deficient. Brief for Respondent 38-40. These specific warnings have been upheld by the Seventh Circuit, Richardson v. DuckworthSearch
-
F.2d 1366 (CA7 1987), and the Indiana Supreme Court, Robinson v. StateSearch
-
case which was raised, but not relied upon, by the District Court. In my view, the rationale of our decision in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
his statements and the knife and clothing on the ground that the warnings he was given were inadequate under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
that the warnings given him during his first encounter with the police were insufficient under Miranda. Eagan v. StateSearch
-
noted the possibility that respondent's claim might not be cognizable on federal habeas under our decision in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
harm to society's interest in punishing and incapacitating those who violate its criminal laws. II In Stone v. PowellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial