Citation network
Texas Vs. Cobb
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 02, 2001
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. 162 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Texas V. CobbSearch
-
and child, and his father then contacted the police. While in custody, respondent waived his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
to those that have actually been charged. Pp.167-174. (a) In McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
to a charged offense, and have interpreted Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 387 , and Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
See, e. g., Brown v. OhioSearch
-
to the charged offense. We hold that our decision in McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
Odessa. Shortly thereafter, Odessa police took respondent into custody and administered warnings pursuant to Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Relying on Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
Three judges dissented, finding Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
In McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
to a charged offense. 1 Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 387 (1977), and Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
right to counsel. We held that the officer's comments to the suspect constituted in- 1 See, e. g., United States v. CovarrubiasSearch
-
United States v. MelgarSearch
-
United States v. DohertySearch
-
United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RainwaterSearch
-
rights are not defined by inferences from opinions which did not address the question at issue. Cf. Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
U. S., at 168 (quoting State v. MoultonSearch
-
self-incrimination and to consult with an attorney before authorities may conduct custodial interrogation. See Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Dickerson v. UnitedSearch
-
McNeil, 501 U. S., at 181 (quoting Moran v. BurbineSearch
-
is not necessarily limited to the four corners of a charging instrument. In Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
the Court has reached its conclusion without the necessity to reaffirm or give approval to the decision in Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
of suspects who have received proper advice of their Miranda rights but waived them nonetheless. See Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 436 (1966). The Miranda rule, and the related preventative rule of Edwards v. ArizonaSearch
-
Patterson v. IllinoisSearch
-
makes a clear and unambiguous assertion of the right to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation. Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
proceedings, that marks the beginning of the Sixth Amendment right. See ante, at 167-168 (quoting McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
to counsel plays a central role in ensuring the fairness of criminal proceedings in our system of justice. See Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
attaches when adversary proceedings, triggered by the government's formal accusation of a crime, begin. See Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
through counsel rather than directly, even if the defendant has waived his Fifth Amendment rights. See Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
not the subject of current proceedings, Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
the right to counsel does not attach to any and every crime that an accused may commit or have committed, see McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
under the test established by Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
and insists that law enforcement officers thereafter communicate with them through that counsel. See, e. g., Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
his dealings with the police, has invoked his constitutional right to legal assistance in such matters. See Michigan v. JacksonSearch
-
he does not believe that he is sufficiently capable of dealing with his adversaries singlehandedly''') (quoting People v. BladelSearch
-
legal choice without the legal assistance that he has requested and that the Constitution guarantees. See McNeil v. WisconsinSearch
-
the unaided layman at critical confrontations' with his 'expert adversary''') (quoting United States v. GouveiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial