Citation network
Thompson Vs. Keohane
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 11, 1995
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 99 (1995) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Thompson V. KeohaneSearch
-
Thompson maintained that the troopers gained his confession without according him the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
to which the statutory presumption of correctness dominantly relates. See, e. g., Miller v. FentonSearch
-
Thompson maintained that the Alaska troopers gained his confession without according him the warnings Miranda v. AriSearch
-
Id., at 7 (quoting Hunter v. StateSearch
-
and therefore had no obligation to give him Miranda warnings. Thompson v. StateSearch
-
d), or mixed questions of law and fact warranting independent review by the federal habeas court. Compare Feltrop v. DeloSearch
-
F.3d 766 , 773 (CA8 1995) (applying presumption of correctness), with Jacobs v. SingletarySearch
-
See Higgins v. StateSearch
-
McKillop v. StateSearch
-
P. 2d 358, 361 (Alaska App. 1993). 4 The panel relied on Krantz v. BriggsSearch
-
this Court recognized in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
see also Oregon v. MathiasonSearch
-
where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody''') (quoted in Stansbury v. CaliforniaSearch
-
d) declares, 5 Claims that state courts have incorrectly decided Miranda issues, as Withrow v. WilliamsSearch
-
Nov. 2, 1966, Pub. L. 89-711, 80 Stat. 1105-1106, received the Court's close attention in Miller v. FentonSearch
-
was an almost verbatim codification of the standards delineated in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
and citing Culombe v. ConnecticutSearch
-
proceeding set out in H. R. Rep. No. 1384, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 25 (1964), is similar to the list set out in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
pp. 537-538 (2d ed. 1994) (description of interplay between habeas statute and Townsend). 8 Keeney v. Tamayo-ReyesSearch
-
U. S., at 309, n. 6 (quoting Brown v. AllenSearch
-
d), as in other contexts,10 the proper characterization of a question as one of 9 See also Brown v. AllenSearch
-
citation omitted). 10 See, e. g., Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
competency to stand trial (e. g., Maggio v. FulfordSearch
-
the effectiveness of counsel's assistance (Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
see also Sumner v. MataSearch
-
contrary to respondents' suggestions, does not mean deferential review is in order. See, e. g., Miller v. FentonSearch
-
McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
they nonetheless can reduce the area of uncertainty. See, e. g., Illinois v. PerkinsSearch
-
to questioning of incarcerated individual by undercover agent because suspect, unaware 114 See Berkemer v. McCartySearch
-
against requiring plenary appellate review of a district court's determination. For example, in Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
benefits that come from an appellate decision on a question of law ... .''' 496 U. S., at 404 (quoting Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
U. S. 552 , 561 (1988)). 15 See, e. g., Stansbury v. CaliforniaSearch
-
cf. Oregon v. HassSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial