People v. Peevy
California Supreme Court
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
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- People v. ZamudioCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- People v. JenkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. CoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.