Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jamaal Johnson v. Adam Paul Laxalt

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 26, 2015No. 14-15339Unpublished

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

  1. Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal TerhuneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  2. David Luther Ghent v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  3. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API