Legal Opinion
Cahill v. Rushen
District Court, E.D. California
Decided December 2, 1980No. Civ. S-78-603 LKKPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
KARLTON, District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is confined as a result of a conviction for first degree murder and challenges that confinement alleging: (1) a confession obtained in violation of both his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was employed in securing his conviction, and (2) the prosecutor improperly argued that the jury should infer guilt from petitioner’s post-arrest silence in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.
FACT…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- People v. WhittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- James Thomas Cahill v. Ruth Rushen, Director, California Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- People v. GonyeaMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. GonyeaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
- Biller v. LopesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.