Legal Opinion
Winfield C. Patterson v. Julius T. Cuyler, Superintendent, and the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 13, 1984No. 82-1394PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner, Winfield Charles Patterson, appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Patterson claims that he was entitled to a hearing in the district court on his claims (1) that he should have been given Miranda warnings before his interview at 7:05 a.m. on February 22, 1977 because he was then in custody and (2) that his waiver of the right to remain silent after he was given Miranda warnings was not knowing and voluntary. We will affirm the district court's decision.
I
Facts and Procedural History
On February 21,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rose v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Miller v. FentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McAdam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Landano v. RaffertyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Carter v. RaffertyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Siers, Charles E. v. Ryan, Joseph M. And the Attorney General of the State of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.