California v. Prysock
Supreme Court of the United States
1Per curiam
This case presents the question whether the warnings given to respondent prior to a recorded conversation with a police officer satisfied the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Although ordinarily this Court would not be inclined to review a case involving application of that precedent to a particular set of facts, see Fare v. Michael C., 439 U. S. 1310, 1314 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers, opinion of Court at 442 U. S. 707 (1979)), the opinion of the California Court of Appeal essentially laid down a flat rule requiring that the content of Miranda warnings be a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Burley Clifton Harryman v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Robert Anthony LamiaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by444 opinions
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Duckworth v. EaganSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State v. RupeWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Florida v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- People v. MattsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
439 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.