Jamaal Johnson v. Adam Paul Laxalt
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
FRIEDMAN,
District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Petitioner Johnson loses on two of his three Miranda claims — that his confession was coached and coerced and that it was the product of a two-step “question first and warn later” interrogation strategy. I respectfully disagree, however, that it was reasonable for the Supreme Court of Nevada to find that Johnson’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent. I therefore would reverse the district court’s denial of Johnson’s habeas corpus petition, and remand with instructions that the writ issue.
Johnso…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal TerhuneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- David Luther Ghent v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.