Commonwealth v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellant, fifteen years old at the time of arrest, asserts that an inculpatory statement he gave to police during custodial interrogation should have been suppressed. Appellant’s claim is based on this Court’s requirement that before waiving Miranda rights a juvenile must be afforded an opportunity to consult with an attorney, parent or other “interested adult.” The Commonwealth, on the other hand, contends that the prison counselor it made available to appellant and with whom appellant spoke is an “interested adult” for purposes of this rule. We agree…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Haley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Commonwealth v. McCutchenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. WebsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. RoaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Commonwealth v. HernandezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. ChristmasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. NelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. RomeriSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.