Citation network
Mcneil Vs. Wisconsin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1991
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. 171 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
U.S. 171 (1991) McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
to counsel during a judicial proceeding does not constitute an invocation of the right to counsel derived by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
right, which does not attach until the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, is offense-specific, Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
U. S. 159 , 474 U. S. 179 -180 and n. 16, as is its effect, under Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
time he made the statements. Moreover, although the Miranda right to counsel is non-offense-specific, Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
and, once asserted, prevents any further police-initiated interrogation outside the presence of counsel, Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
with the government after the initiation of the adversary process with respect to a particular crime, United States v. GouveiaSearch
-
In Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 180 , 467 U. S. 188 (1984) (quoting Kirby v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 689 (1972) (plurality opinion)). And just as the right is offense-specific, so also its Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Id. at 474 U. S. 180 , n. 16. See also Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
In Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Id. at 384 U. S. 475 . In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. at 451 U. S. 484 -485 -- which means, we have most recently held, that counsel must be present, Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
regarding one offense, he may not be reapproached regarding any offense unless counsel is present. Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
State v. StewartSearch
-
Wash.2d 462, 471, 780 P.2d 844, 849 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1020 (1990). Our holding in Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Douglas v. JeannetteSearch
-
Michigan v. BladelSearch
-
which a preliminary hearing will not always, or even usually, involve, cf. Pennsylvania v. MunizSearch
-
to the offense in question should apply as well to requests for counsel under the Fifth Amendment. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
U. S. 675 , 486 U. S. 688 (1988) (KENNEDY, J., dissenting). For those in custody, Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
offense-specific house of cards that the Court has erected today would collapse, pursuant to our holding in Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
understanding of the scope of the right, and with the accepted practice of the legal profession. In Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
interpretation of the same right. It accepts the State's suggestion that although, under our prior holding in Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
right. I trust its boundaries will not be patterned after the Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence, cf. Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
quality of prior cases such as Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 477 (1981), Solem v. StumesSearch
-
U. S. 638 (1984), and Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
the Court is revealing a preference for an inquisitorial system of justice. As I suggested in Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
Wis.2d 24, 50, 454 N.W.2d 742, 752-753 (1990). See also United States ex rel. Espinoza v. FairmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Kirby v. IllinoisSearch
-
In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. MunizSearch
-
the Fifth Amendment. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
and Michigan v. JacksonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial