Legal Opinion

People v. Peevy

California Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1998No. S056734PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEORGE, C. J.

In order to protect the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination, the United States Supreme Court has declared that persons subject to custodial interrogation must be informed of certain rights, including the right to counsel, and that once such a person invokes the right to counsel, the police must cease interrogation until counsel is provided or *1188the suspect initiates further contact and makes it clear that he or she wishes to proceed without counsel. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 474 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974] (Miranda);…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. People v. ZamudioCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. People v. JenkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. CoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

53 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