Citation network
Pennsylvania Vs. Muniz
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 1990
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
-
U.S. 582 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. MunizSearch
-
U.S. 582 (1990) Pennsylvania v. MunizSearch
-
for driving while under the influence on a Pennsylvania highway. Without being advised of his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
requiring him to reveal the physical properties of the sound of his voice by reading a transcript, see United States v. DionisioSearch
-
Miranda protections and need not be suppressed. Although they constituted custodial interrogation, see Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
United States v. HortonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
he Page 496 U. S. 586 was not at this time (nor had he been previously) advised of his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
id. at C6, quoting Commonwealth v. BensonSearch
-
Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
States, 487 U. S. 201 , 487 U. S. 210 (1988). In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Page 496 U. S. 591 component of Muniz's responses to Officer Hosterman's introductory questions. In Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
for purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination. We noted that, in Holt v. UnitedSearch
-
where the evidence could be produced only through some volitional act on the part of the suspect. In United States v. WadeSearch
-
In Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id. at 388 U. S. 266 -267. And in United States v. DionisioSearch
-
We recently explained in Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
Gilbert, 388 U.S. at 388 U. S. 266 -267. It is the 'extortion of information from the accused,' Couch v. UnitedSearch
-
at 409 U. S. 328 , the attempt to force him 'to disclose the contents of his own mind,' Curcio v. UnitedSearch
-
Andresen v. MarylandSearch
-
between revealing incriminating private thoughts and forsaking their oath by committing perjury. See United States v. NoblesSearch
-
quoting Couch v. UnitedSearch
-
Ullmann v. UnitedSearch
-
between Page 496 U. S. 598 truthfully or falsely revealing their thoughts. We carefully noted in Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 520 , 481 U. S. 526 (1987). In Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
Illinois v. PerkinsSearch
-
Harryman v. EstelleSearch
-
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 12, quoting United States v. HortonSearch
-
Pa.Super. at 387, 547 A.2d at 422 (quoting Commonwealth v. BensonSearch
-
See South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
-
custody for purposes of Miranda until he was arrested after the roadside tests were completed. See Pennsylvania v. BruderSearch
-
Pa.Super. 382, 386, 547 A.2d 419, 421 (1988) (quoting Commonwealth v. ConwaySearch
-
A.2d 541, 546 (1987)). The decision therefore does not rest on an independent and adequate state ground. See Michigan v. LongSearch
-
In Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GriscavageSearch
-
Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
Baltimore Dept. of Social Serv. v. BouknightSearch
-
See Doe, supra, at 487 U. S. 212 -213 (quoting Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Braswell v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WadeSearch
-
Muniz's mind as evidenced by his assertion of his knowledge at that time. This distinction is reflected in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
s remarks to be truthful for purposes of drawing his inferences as to the defendant's state of mind, see South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial