Legal Opinion

Dorsey v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided August 19, 2010No. 06-CF-1099PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REID, Associate Judge:

The government concedes that during the first phase of police interrogation of appellant, James A. Dorsey, “the police violated the prophylactic rule articulated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)” by not stopping the interrogation when Mr. Dorsey invoked his right to counsel after having initially waived his Miranda rights. This case requires us to determine, primarily, (1) whether Mr. Dorsey initiated conversation with the police that resulted in his…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. North Carolina v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dorsey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Dorsey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Dorsey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API