Wade Robertson v. Rise Pichon
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1ConcurrenceThomas, Chief Judge
Given the standard of review required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), I concur in the majority opinion. Because the state of the law concerning pre-interrogation assertion of Miranda rights is not “clearly established,” the state court decision in this case was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Supreme Court has “never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.