Legal Opinion
Choi Chun Lam v. Donald Kelchner, Superintendent the District Attorney of the County of Lancaster the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 10, 2002No. 00-3803, 00-4122PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROTH, Circuit Judge.
In this habeas appeal, we must decide if the Pennsylvania Superior Court was objectively unreasonable in ruling that petitioner Choi Chun Lam’s responses to undercover government agents were voluntary and, thus, satisfied the requirements of due process. Lam gave incriminating responses after the agents threatened her with physical violence. These responses include her statements to the agents and a telephone call from her workplace to an alleged co-conspirator shortly thereafter. The record contains undisputed testimony that Lam was afraid of the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- United States v. Robert E. BrennanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Littlejohn v. TrammellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- Osa Inthavong v. Anthony Lamarque, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Tony Bennett v. Superintendent Graterford SCICourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Hardcastle v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.