Citation network
Davis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1994
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
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 512 U.S. 452 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Davis V. UnitedSearch
-
Mter a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that right at any time, the police must immediately cease questioning him until an attorney is present. Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
and Paul D. Kamenar. 454 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
adopted with respect to ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during custodial interrogation, see Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
to counsel attaches only at the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings, see United 457 States v. GouveiaSearch
-
in a criminal investigation has no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Nevertheless, we held in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
interrogations and control the admissibility of evidence at trials by court-martial, see, e. g., United States v. McLarenSearch
-
United States v. ApplewhiteSearch
-
al. as Amici Curiae 7-14. Although we will consider arguments raised only in an amicus brief, see Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U. S., at 483. See Oregon v. BradshawSearch
-
counsel after receiving the Miranda warnings, law enforcement officers are free to question him. North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation. Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
the right to counsel cannot be questioned regarding any offense unless an attorney is actually present. Minnick v. MississippiSearch
-
supra, at 95 (emphasis added), quoting Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
provide guidance to officers conducting interrogations, this is an objective inquiry. See Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect. See Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
to cease questioning immediately upon the making of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney. See Arizona v. RobersonSearch
-
Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
nor even the first case in which that failure has been called to its attention. See Tr. of Oral Arg. in United States v. GreenSearch
-
does not prevent Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
constitutional mandate, and there are times when prudence dictates the contrary. See United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. IndependentSearch
-
For most of this century, voluntariness vel non was the touchstone of admissibility of confessions. See Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
that might be entirely irrelevant under federal law. See, e. g., in addition to the present case, United States v. GreenSearch
-
United States v. VazquezSearch
-
United States v. ScalfSearch
-
of Keith Shackleton and instead undertook to determine whether he meant to invoke his right to counsel, see Mi randa v. ArizonaSearch
-
to have addressed the issue before US,l and the advocacy of a considerable body of law 1 See, e. g., United States v. PorterSearch
-
United States v. GotaySearch
-
Thompson v. WainwrightSearch
-
United States v. FoucheSearch
-
United States v. MarchSearch
-
being assured that questioning will not resume without counsel present, see Miranda, supra, at 474, Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Syllabus Davis V. UnitedSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
of the Court. In Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial