Citation network
Minnick Vs. Mississippi
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 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
-
U.S. 146 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. 146 (1990) Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
was taken in violation of, inter alia, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, reasoning that the rule of Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Edwards' purpose to protect a suspect's right to have counsel present at custodial interrogation and with Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
must terminate interrogation of an accused in custody if the accused requests the assistance of counsel. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 436 , 384 U. S. 474 (1966). We reinforced the protections of Miranda in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
ibid., quoting Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Amendment protection of Edwards is not terminated or suspended by consultation with counsel. In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 344 , 494 U. S. 350 (1990). Page 498 U. S. 151 See also Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 675 , 486 U. S. 682 (1988). Cf. Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
U. S. 718 (1979). This pre- Edwards explanation applies as well to Edwards and its progeny. Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
U.S. at 384 U. S. 466 . See Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
U. S. 1039 , 462 U. S. 1043 (1983) (emphasis added). See also Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Patterson v. IllinoisSearch
-
at which point the same protection might reattach by virtue of our Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, see Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
these purposes, and we have declined Page 498 U. S. 156 to confine it in other instances. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
warnings and has actually consulted his attorney. This holding builds on foundations already established in Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
and even our recent precedents are not a valid excuse. II In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
ibid., set forth in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
of showing a waiver of constitutional criminal Page 498 U. S. 160 procedural rights. See, e.g., Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
from imposing on the States a higher standard for the waiver of Miranda rights. For example, in Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
to remain silent, could not validly waive the right during any subsequent questioning by the police. In North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
of Miranda rights must be deemed involuntary absent an explicit assertion of waiver by the suspect. And in Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
ibid. (quoting Michigan v. HarveySearch
-
ibid. (quoting Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
right has attached, also triggers the Edwards prohibition of police-solicited confessions, see Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
not merely to interrogations involving the original crime, but to those involving other subjects as well. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
of Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
Cf. Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
See Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
II In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial