Legal Opinion

United States v. Larry Loucious

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 7, 2017No. 16-10121PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Before the start of a custodial interrogation, Defendant Larry Loucious received warnings informing him he had the right to remain silent; he had the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and that if he could not afford an attorney, an attorney would be appointed before questioning. Loucious moved to suppress the statements he made during the custodial interrogation, arguing that the Miranda warnings he received were constitutionally deficient because they did not tell him of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning. The district…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Duckworth v. EaganSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. California v. PrysockSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Florida v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. United States v. Michael NotiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. SernaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. United States v. Rosendo Valdivias-SotoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
  3. People of Michigan v. Laricca Seminta MathewsMichigan Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Ruiz v. WillsDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020
  5. Stewart v. NajeraDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2024

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API