Legal Opinion

State v. Miranda

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 23, 2001No. C4-00-524PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge

Appealing from a conviction for first-degree controlled substance offense, the appellant argues that he was prejudiced by police failure to notify him of his right to have the Mexican consul notified of his arrest. Appellant argues that a violation of the Vienna Convention is a structural error and that, in any event, he has shown prejudice by providing an affidavit from the Mexican consul stating of what he would have been advised if the consul had been notified. He claims that, because the police lacked valid consent and that no exigent circumstances existed to warrant…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Breard v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Antoine v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Trevor A. Waldron v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  5. United States v. Daniel Proa-TovarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. ByronCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  2. State v. Morales-MulatoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
  3. State v. ByronCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  4. State v. SlettenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API