Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 23, 1979No. 5PublishedCited by 19 opinions

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

  1. Haley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Commonwealth v. McCutchenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Commonwealth v. WebsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Commonwealth v. RoaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Commonwealth v. HernandezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Commonwealth v. ChristmasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. NelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. RomeriSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

14 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