Citation network
Chavez Vs. Martinez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 2003
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. 760 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Chavez V. MartinezSearch
-
officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right. See Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
in a criminal case, but it is not until such use that the Self-Incrimination Clause is violated, see United States v. Verdugo-UrquidezSearch
-
the cruel trilemma of selfaccusation, perjury or contempt.''' Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
so long as the witness is not the target of the criminal case in which he testifies, see, e. g., Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements in any subsequent criminal trial, e. g., Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
or the judicial capacity to protect it, would be placed at risk absent complementary protection, see, e. g., McCarthy v. ArndsteinSearch
-
continued the interview. Id., at 14. At no point during the interview was Martinez given warnings under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's denial of qualified immunity. Martinez v. OxnardSearch
-
F.3d 852 (2001). Applying Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
Instead, the Ninth Circuit reiterated the holding of an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Cooper v. DupnikSearch
-
rights. A 1 The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings. See Blyew v. UnitedSearch
-
Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, see Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the SelfIncrimination Clause occurs, see United States v. VerdugoUrquidezSearch
-
U. S. 433 , 445 (1974) (quoting Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
pain of contempt, so long as the witness is not the target of the criminal case in which he testifies. See Minnesota v. MurphySearch
-
Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
or evidence derived from those statements) cannot be used against the speaker in any criminal case. See Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
the answers elicited (and their fruits) are immunized from use in any criminal case against the speaker. See Lefkowitz v. TurleySearch
-
the use of their compelled statements in subsequent criminal proceedings. See Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. CommissionerSearch
-
See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial. Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
U. S. 143 , 155 (1944). See also Pillsbury Co. v. ConboySearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
Garner v. UnitedSearch
-
see Rog ers v. UnitedSearch
-
admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning. See Warren v. LincolnSearch
-
Giuffre v. BissellSearch
-
Bennett v. PassicSearch
-
see also New York v. QuarlesSearch
-
action. See Connecticut v. BarrettSearch
-
California Attorneysfor Criminal Justice v. ButtsSearch
-
to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment, that permits him to adopt the Ninth Circuit's interpretation. Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial