31:
333:. He was told, however, that he was free to leave the conference room and go back to his cell. He was not handcuffed or chained, and he did not ask to go back to his cell or ask for a lawyer, but at one point he did tell the deputies he didn't want to talk to them any more. Returning to his cell would involve waiting about 20 minutes so a guard could arrive to escort him. Fields made statements during the interrogation that would to his being prosecuted and convicted for third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
688:
put it, whether Fields was subjected to "incommunicado interrogation. . .in a police-dominated atmosphere," whether he was placed, against his will, in an inherently stressful situation, and whether his "freedom of action curtailed in any significant way." Those should be the key questions, and to
636:
s custody requirement was met: The interview lasted for between five and seven hours in the evening and continued well past the hour when respondent generally went to bed; the deputies who questioned respondent were armed; and one of the deputies, according to respondent, "sed a very sharp tone,"
588:
In this case, it is abundantly clear that our precedents do not clearly establish the categorical rule on which the Court of
Appeals relied, i.e., that the questioning of a prisoner is always custodial when the prisoner is removed from the general prison population and questioned about events that
325:
Jail in
Michigan when he was escorted to a conference room and questioned by two sheriff's deputies. The deputies questioned him about a sexual assault that was unrelated to the sentence he was serving. The interrogation began between 7 and 9 PM, lasted until midnight, and at no point was Fields
496:
Interrogated suspects who have previously been convicted of crime live in prison. When they are released back into the general prison population, they return to their accustomed surroundings and daily routine—they regain the degree of control they had over their lives prior to the
570:
petitions are a very old judicial process, dating back to the 12th century in
England. More recently, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, had imposed particular limits on how federal courts in the U.S. handled
296:(AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial (that is, he was not "in custody" in a way that was covered by the
637:
and, on one occasion, profanity. These circumstances, however, were offset by others. Most important, respondent was told at the outset of the interrogation, and was reminded again thereafter, that he could leave and go back to his cell whenever he wanted.
579:
can be granted if a state court decision "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" Considering the application of
407:, making the same arguments as his state court appeal. In a 2009 ruling, the District Court declined to consider his arguments about sentencing or the other evidence (these were state law issues, which could not be considered for a federal
514:
Correspondingly, the Court of
Appeals stated, " prisoner is in custody when he is removed from his 'normal life' by being taken from his cell to an isolated area, such as a closet or conference room, for the purpose of interrogation."
631:
To be sure, respondent did not invite the interview or consent to it in advance, and he was not advised that he was free to decline to speak with the deputies. The following facts also lend some support to respondent's argument that
436:
warnings had not been required. The Court, however, did not find any of these examples relevant, as none involved a prisoner being interrogated alone in a separate room. The Court relied on a recent Sixth
Circuit decision,
611:, had involved their own factual inquiries, and could not be relied on for establishing any categorical rule. The Sixth Circuit was therefore wrong to apply its categorical rule, and was wrong to grant the writ of
683:
precludes the State's introduction of Fields's confession as evidence against him. . .I would not train, as the Court does, on the question whether there can be custody within custody. Instead, I would ask, as
1873:
862:
404:
1838:
602:
Rather, the Court had consistently relied on case-by-case examination of the circumstances of an interrogation to determine whether it was custodial. The cases that the Sixth
Circuit had cited, such as
377:
rights, he was told that he was free to leave the conference room and return to his cell. Defendant never asked to leave." Therefore, he was not "in custody" for the purposes of
293:
79:
1853:
965:
892:
589:
occurred outside the prison. On the contrary, we have repeatedly declined to adopt any categorical rule with respect to whether the questioning of a prison inmate is custodial.
303:
1843:
428:
The prison warden, Carol Howes, appealed the decision to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the state of Michigan. Although the Sixth Circuit did not yet have
1065:
261:
1056:
914:
1068:
365:, arguing the motion to suppress should have been granted, that evidence of other sexual acts should have been excluded, and that the judge impermissibly exceeding
1858:
1833:
984:
350:, a jury found Fields guilty of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and he was sentenced to ten to fifteen years. Fields had made a
1878:
1537:
1049:
623:
After detailing why the Sixth
Circuit's categorical rule was "unsound," the majority said that Fields was not, in fact, in custody for
1848:
729:
159:
petition, as it was not "clearly established federal law", and 2) that the prisoner had not been subject to a custodial interrogation.
35:
531:
to his situation was not "clearly established federal law", and it held by a 6–3 vote that his interrogation had not been custodial.
1863:
1082:
523:
The state of
Michigan appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Sixth Circuit. The court unanimously held that Fields'
453:, state agents unaffiliated with the prison isolated an inmate and questioned him about an unrelated incident without first giving
1686:
1282:
1462:
1042:
675:
petition had to be denied. However, she dissented from the majority's analysis of the circumstances of Fields' interrogation:
432:-related caselaw about prisoners being interrogated for unrelated crimes, the state cited examples from other circuits where
369:. In 2004, the Court of Appeals upheld the other evidence and the sentence as a matter of state law, and as to the lack of a
911:
421:, where a prisoner had been interrogated by an IRS agent; a subsequent conviction was thrown out because there had been no
118:
1349:
1486:
1419:
1183:
1226:
292:
per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the
1774:
1702:
1111:
1586:
1250:
1127:
922:
362:
1868:
1694:
1553:
322:
1502:
461:, ruled that statements obtained from such questioning was admissible. And in both cases, the failure to heed
288:, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a
1742:
1598:
417:
1734:
1494:
1438:
1384:
1317:
1309:
1242:
1143:
1034:
786:
351:
289:
1234:
1718:
1662:
1368:
1341:
1333:
1266:
1207:
1199:
1164:
945:
938:
385:
547:
petitions address issues of "clearly established federal law", and the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of
1766:
1638:
1606:
1478:
1376:
1095:
770:
366:
74:
1622:
1529:
1400:
1758:
1726:
1678:
1670:
1630:
1446:
1290:
941:
858:
773:
723:
716:
697:, 565 U.S. at 518 (Justice Ginsburg, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations omitted)
656:
488:
271:
202:
134:
122:
1710:
1646:
1614:
1561:
1545:
1135:
1025:
709:
358:
warning, but the trial court denied the motion, saying the interrogation had not been custodial.
298:
266:
1750:
1454:
1392:
1274:
155:
caselaw, and therefore 1) the Sixth Circuit's own rule could not be the basis for granting a
1798:
1654:
1521:
1470:
885:
1325:
1258:
1191:
918:
664:
327:
218:
194:
190:
671:
was unclear, and the Sixth Circuit had been wrong to use a categorical rule, and so the
1782:
1119:
660:
506:
478:
206:
182:
469:
warnings was "improper" and "any resulting statements suppressed" by the trial court.
63:
1827:
1806:
1103:
307:
1011:
540:
214:
174:
985:"Opinion analysis: Court reverses habeas grant and limits application of Miranda"
961:
226:
457:
warnings." Moreover, the state court judges in both cases, without even citing
989:
791:
138:
555:
did not qualify, and 2) that even if this were a direct appeal instead of a
888:
411:
petition), but it granted his petition on the grounds of not being given a
627:
purposes, primarily because Fields was told he could leave when he wanted:
354:
the statements he'd made, on the grounds that he should have been given a
813:
615:. This part of the decision was unanimously joined by all nine justices.
441:
which was factually similar, and was controlling precedent for this case:
94:
559:
petition, Fields' interrogation could not be considered "custodial."
415:
warning. The Court compared Fields' interrogation to the 1968 case
818:
1584:
1162:
1080:
1038:
679:
Were the case here on direct review, I would vote to hold that
30:
121:(Mich. App. May 6, 2004), leave for appeal denied, 689 N.W.2d
645:, 565 U.S. at 515 (Justice Alito, writing for the majority)
597:, 565 U.S. at 505 (Justice Alito, writing for the majority)
1874:
United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law
243:
Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan
373:
warning, it said, "Although defendant was not read his
1839:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
543:
addressed two issues: 1) that the AEDPA required that
527:
petition could not succeed because the application of
667:, agreed with the majority that the applicability of
575:
petitions from prisoners in state prisons. A writ of
54:
Carol Howes, Warden, Petitioner v. Randall Lee Fields
302:
decision). This decision overturned the rule of the
1513:
1430:
1411:
1360:
1301:
1218:
1175:
255:
247:
239:
234:
163:
145:
105:
100:
90:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
486:The Court also noted a recent Supreme Court case,
677:
629:
586:
494:
443:
1050:
787:"Howes v. Fields | Case Brief for Law School"
294:Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
8:
1854:United States criminal due process case law
477:, 617 F.3d at 821 (6th. Cir. 2010) (Judge
1581:
1172:
1159:
1077:
1057:
1043:
1035:
151:That the Sixth Circuit had misinterpreted
20:
321:Randall Fields was serving a sentence in
109:Jury trial, conviction, and sentencing,
744:
137:(E.D. Mich. 2009); affirmed, 617 F.3d
1538:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
584:to Fields' situation, the Court said:
505:, 559 U.S. 98 at 113 (2010) (Justice
251:Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor
18:2012 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1859:United States habeas corpus case law
1014:. Yale University. December 1, 1998.
978:
976:
974:
903:
901:
877:
875:
873:
871:
850:
848:
846:
844:
842:
840:
838:
836:
762:
760:
758:
756:
754:
752:
750:
748:
388:, but it declined to hear his case.
1844:Prisoners' and ex-prisoners' rights
983:Raphael, Alan (February 22, 2012).
539:Writing for the majority, Justice
384:Fields requested an appeal to the
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1834:United States Supreme Court cases
563:"Clearly established federal law"
85:132 S. Ct. 1181, 182 L. Ed. 2d 17
1283:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
29:
650:
1879:2012 in United States case law
1:
1066:United States Fifth Amendment
519:Decision of the Supreme Court
342:Trial and state court appeals
1487:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
1420:Blockburger v. United States
1184:Blockburger v. United States
306:, and denied the prisoner's
1227:United States v. Randenbush
1012:"Assize of Clarendon, 1166"
509:, writing for the majority)
481:, writing for the majority)
465:and forego the issuance of
1895:
1775:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
1703:Dickerson v. United States
1112:Wong Wing v. United States
689:each I would answer "Yes."
651:Ginsburg's dissent in part
1849:Legal history of Michigan
1687:Mitchell v. United States
1593:
1587:Self-Incrimination Clause
1580:
1431:Dual sovereignty doctrine
1251:Fong Foo v. United States
1176:Meaning of "same offense"
1171:
1158:
1128:United States v. Moreland
1090:
1076:
859:Case Number 2:06-CV-13373
363:Michigan Court of Appeals
260:
168:
150:
135:Case Number 2:06-CV-13373
45:Decided February 21, 2012
28:
1864:Miranda warning case law
1695:United States v. Hubbell
1554:North Carolina v. Pearce
1503:Denezpi v. United States
1463:United States v. Wheeler
1743:Corley v. United States
1735:United States v. Patane
1599:Curcio v. United States
1495:Gamble v. United States
1385:United States v. Dinitz
1318:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
1310:United States v. Wilson
1243:Burton v. United States
1144:United States v. Cotton
619:Custodial interrogation
418:Mathis v. United States
361:Fields appealed to the
290:custodial interrogation
129:conditionally granted,
43:Argued October 24, 2011
1719:Yarborough v. Alvarado
1439:United States v. Lanza
1369:United States v. Perez
1350:Smith v. United States
1342:United States v. Dixon
1334:United States v. Felix
1267:Burks v. United States
1208:United States v. Dixon
1200:United States v. Felix
1165:Double Jeopardy Clause
700:
648:
600:
512:
484:
386:Michigan Supreme Court
346:In a 2002 case titled
125:(Mich. 2004); writ of
1767:Berghuis v. Thompkins
1607:Griffin v. California
1479:United States v. Lara
1377:United States v. Jorn
1235:Ball v. United States
1096:Hurtado v. California
659:, joined by Justices
492:, which said in part:
445:In both our case and
399:Fields later filed a
367:sentencing guidelines
1663:Doe v. United States
1530:Palko v. Connecticut
1401:Blueford v. Arkansas
733:in the United States
262:U.S. Const. amend VI
113:, (2002); affirmed,
1759:Maryland v. Shatzer
1727:Missouri v. Seibert
1679:McNeil v. Wisconsin
1671:Illinois v. Perkins
1631:Williams v. Florida
1447:Bartkus v. Illinois
1412:Multiple punishment
1291:McElrath v. Georgia
724:Illinois v. Perkins
717:Maryland v. Shatzer
503:Maryland v. Shatzer
489:Maryland v. Shatzer
439:Simpson v. Jackson,
203:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1711:Chavez v. Martinez
1647:Edwards v. Arizona
1639:Michigan v. Tucker
1615:Miranda v. Arizona
1562:Benton v. Maryland
1546:Baxstrom v. Herold
1136:Beck v. Washington
1069:criminal procedure
958:Simpson v. Jackson
917:2021-07-21 at the
710:Miranda v. Arizona
352:motion to suppress
337:Procedural History
299:Miranda v. Arizona
272:28 U.S.C. § 2254 (
267:Miranda v. Arizona
179:Associate Justices
153:Miranda v. Arizona
1821:
1820:
1817:
1816:
1751:Florida v. Powell
1623:Boulden v. Holman
1576:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1455:Waller v. Florida
1393:Oregon v. Kennedy
1275:Evans v. Michigan
1154:
1153:
814:"Howes v. Fields"
281:
280:
1886:
1799:Salinas v. Texas
1655:Oregon v. Elstad
1582:
1522:Ex parte Bigelow
1471:Heath v. Alabama
1302:After conviction
1173:
1160:
1078:
1059:
1052:
1045:
1036:
1029:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1002:
1001:
999:
997:
980:
969:
955:
949:
935:People v. Fields
932:
926:
908:People v. Fields
905:
896:
879:
866:
852:
831:
830:
828:
826:
810:
804:
803:
801:
799:
783:
777:
764:
698:
646:
598:
535:Majority opinion
510:
482:
348:People v. Fields
164:Court membership
115:People v. Fields
111:People v. Fields
33:
32:
21:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1869:Law enforcement
1824:
1823:
1822:
1813:
1791:Howes v. Fields
1589:
1568:
1509:
1426:
1407:
1356:
1326:Grady v. Corbin
1297:
1259:Ashe v. Swenson
1219:After acquittal
1214:
1192:Grady v. Corbin
1167:
1150:
1086:
1072:
1063:
1033:
1032:
1023:
1019:
1010:
1009:
1005:
995:
993:
982:
981:
972:
956:
952:
933:
929:
919:Wayback Machine
906:
899:
880:
869:
855:Fields v. Howes
853:
834:
824:
822:
812:
811:
807:
797:
795:
785:
784:
780:
767:Howes v. Fields
765:
746:
741:
705:
699:
695:Howes v. Fields
693:
653:
647:
643:Howes v. Fields
641:
621:
599:
595:Howes v. Fields
593:
565:
537:
521:
511:
501:
483:
475:Fields v. Howes
473:
397:
344:
339:
319:
285:Howes v. Fields
219:Sonia Sotomayor
217:
205:
195:Clarence Thomas
193:
191:Anthony Kennedy
141:(6th Cir. 2010)
131:Fields v. Howes
86:
44:
38:
24:Howes v. Fields
19:
12:
11:
5:
1892:
1890:
1882:
1881:
1876:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1826:
1825:
1819:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1812:
1811:
1803:
1795:
1787:
1783:Bobby v. Dixon
1779:
1771:
1763:
1755:
1747:
1739:
1731:
1723:
1715:
1707:
1699:
1691:
1683:
1675:
1667:
1659:
1651:
1643:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1611:
1603:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1585:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1567:
1566:
1558:
1550:
1542:
1534:
1526:
1517:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1508:
1507:
1499:
1491:
1483:
1475:
1467:
1459:
1451:
1443:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1425:
1424:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1405:
1397:
1389:
1381:
1373:
1364:
1362:
1361:After mistrial
1358:
1357:
1355:
1354:
1346:
1338:
1330:
1322:
1314:
1305:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1287:
1279:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1213:
1212:
1204:
1196:
1188:
1179:
1177:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1149:
1148:
1140:
1132:
1124:
1120:Maxwell v. Dow
1116:
1108:
1100:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1074:
1073:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1054:
1047:
1039:
1031:
1030:
1017:
1003:
970:
950:
927:
897:
882:Field v. Howes
867:
832:
805:
778:
743:
742:
740:
737:
736:
735:
727:
720:
713:
704:
701:
691:
652:
649:
639:
620:
617:
591:
564:
561:
536:
533:
520:
517:
499:
497:interrogation.
479:Dan A. Polster
471:
396:
390:
343:
340:
338:
335:
323:Lenawee County
318:
315:
279:
278:
258:
257:
253:
252:
249:
248:Concur/dissent
245:
244:
241:
237:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
207:Stephen Breyer
183:Antonin Scalia
180:
177:
172:
166:
165:
161:
160:
148:
147:
143:
142:
107:
103:
102:
98:
97:
92:
88:
87:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1891:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1829:
1809:
1808:
1807:Vega v. Tekoh
1804:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1793:
1792:
1788:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1579:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1512:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1433:
1429:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1414:
1410:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1363:
1359:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1221:
1217:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:Ex parte Bain
1101:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1067:
1060:
1055:
1053:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1007:
1004:
992:
991:
986:
979:
977:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
951:
947:
943:
940:
936:
931:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
909:
904:
902:
898:
894:
890:
887:
883:
878:
876:
874:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
851:
849:
847:
845:
843:
841:
839:
837:
833:
821:
820:
815:
809:
806:
794:
793:
788:
782:
779:
775:
772:
768:
763:
761:
759:
757:
755:
753:
751:
749:
745:
738:
734:
732:
731:Habeas corpus
728:
726:
725:
721:
719:
718:
714:
712:
711:
707:
706:
702:
696:
690:
687:
682:
676:
674:
673:habeas corpus
670:
666:
662:
658:
644:
638:
635:
628:
626:
618:
616:
614:
613:habeas corpus
610:
606:
596:
590:
585:
583:
578:
577:habeas corpus
574:
573:habeas corpus
569:
568:Habeas corpus
562:
560:
558:
557:habeas corpus
554:
550:
546:
545:habeas corpus
542:
534:
532:
530:
526:
525:habeas corpus
518:
516:
508:
504:
498:
493:
491:
490:
480:
476:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
442:
440:
435:
431:
426:
424:
420:
419:
414:
410:
409:habeas corpus
406:
405:federal court
402:
401:habeas corpus
394:
393:Habeas corpus
391:
389:
387:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
359:
357:
353:
349:
341:
336:
334:
332:
330:
324:
316:
314:
312:
310:
309:habeas corpus
305:
304:Sixth Circuit
301:
300:
295:
291:
287:
286:
277:
275:
274:habeas corpus
269:
268:
263:
259:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:Case opinions
233:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:Chief Justice
170:
169:
167:
162:
158:
157:habeas corpus
154:
149:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:habeas corpus
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
96:
95:Oral argument
93:
89:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1805:
1797:
1790:
1789:
1781:
1773:
1765:
1757:
1749:
1741:
1733:
1725:
1717:
1709:
1701:
1693:
1685:
1677:
1669:
1661:
1653:
1645:
1637:
1629:
1621:
1613:
1605:
1597:
1560:
1552:
1544:
1536:
1528:
1520:
1501:
1493:
1485:
1477:
1469:
1461:
1453:
1445:
1437:
1418:
1399:
1391:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1348:
1340:
1332:
1324:
1316:
1308:
1289:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1225:
1206:
1198:
1190:
1182:
1142:
1134:
1126:
1118:
1110:
1102:
1094:
1028:§ 2254(d)(1)
1020:
1006:
994:. Retrieved
988:
957:
953:
934:
930:
925:May 6, 2004)
907:
881:
854:
823:. Retrieved
817:
808:
796:. Retrieved
790:
781:
766:
730:
722:
715:
708:
694:
685:
680:
678:
672:
668:
654:
642:
633:
630:
624:
622:
612:
608:
604:
601:
594:
587:
581:
576:
572:
567:
566:
556:
552:
548:
544:
538:
528:
524:
522:
513:
502:
495:
487:
485:
474:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
444:
438:
433:
429:
427:
422:
416:
412:
408:
403:petition in
400:
398:
392:
383:
378:
374:
370:
360:
355:
347:
345:
328:
320:
308:
297:
284:
283:
282:
273:
265:
256:Laws applied
222:
215:Samuel Alito
210:
198:
186:
175:John Roberts
156:
152:
130:
126:
114:
110:
101:Case history
78:
53:
15:
960:, 615 F.3d
227:Elena Kagan
1828:Categories
1083:Grand Jury
990:SCOTUSblog
923:Mich. App.
912:No. 246041
863:E.D. Mich.
792:LexisNexis
739:References
317:Background
119:No. 246041
60:Docket no.
665:Sotomayor
449:, "as in
425:warning.
70:Citations
1071:case law
996:July 21,
966:6th Cir.
915:Archived
893:6th Cir.
825:July 21,
798:July 21,
703:See also
692:—
657:Ginsburg
655:Justice
640:—
634:Miranda'
592:—
500:—
472:—
395:petition
326:given a
311:petition
240:Majority
91:Argument
686:Miranda
681:Miranda
669:Miranda
625:Miranda
609:Shatzer
582:Miranda
549:Miranda
529:Miranda
467:Miranda
455:Miranda
447:Simpson
434:Miranda
430:Miranda
423:Miranda
413:Miranda
379:Miranda
375:Miranda
371:Miranda
356:Miranda
331:warning
329:Miranda
146:Holding
1810:(2022)
1802:(2013)
1794:(2012)
1786:(2011)
1778:(2011)
1770:(2010)
1762:(2010)
1754:(2010)
1746:(2009)
1738:(2004)
1730:(2004)
1722:(2004)
1714:(2003)
1706:(2000)
1698:(2000)
1690:(1999)
1682:(1991)
1674:(1990)
1666:(1988)
1658:(1985)
1650:(1981)
1642:(1974)
1634:(1970)
1626:(1969)
1618:(1966)
1610:(1965)
1602:(1957)
1565:(1969)
1557:(1969)
1549:(1966)
1541:(1947)
1533:(1937)
1525:(1885)
1506:(2022)
1498:(2019)
1490:(2016)
1482:(2004)
1474:(1985)
1466:(1978)
1458:(1970)
1450:(1959)
1442:(1922)
1423:(1932)
1404:(2012)
1396:(1982)
1388:(1976)
1380:(1971)
1372:(1824)
1353:(2023)
1345:(1993)
1337:(1992)
1329:(1990)
1321:(1976)
1313:(1833)
1294:(2024)
1286:(2016)
1278:(2013)
1270:(1978)
1262:(1970)
1254:(1962)
1246:(1906)
1238:(1896)
1230:(1834)
1211:(1993)
1203:(1992)
1195:(1990)
1187:(1932)
1147:(2002)
1139:(1962)
1131:(1922)
1123:(1900)
1115:(1896)
1107:(1887)
1099:(1884)
1085:Clause
1026:U.S.C.
939:N.W.2d
937:, 689
884:, 617
776:(2012)
769:, 565
661:Breyer
605:Mathis
553:Mathis
507:Scalia
463:Mathis
459:Mathis
451:Mathis
225:
223:·
221:
213:
211:·
209:
201:
199:·
197:
189:
187:·
185:
64:10-680
1514:Other
968:2010)
948:2004)
946:Mich.
895:2010)
865:2009)
541:Alito
106:Prior
77:499 (
998:2021
886:F.3d
827:2021
819:Oyez
800:2021
771:U.S.
663:and
607:and
551:and
80:more
75:U.S.
73:565
1024:28
962:421
942:233
889:813
774:499
139:813
123:233
1830::
987:.
973:^
910:,
900:^
870:^
857:,
835:^
816:.
789:.
747:^
381:.
313:.
270:,
264:,
133:,
117:,
1058:e
1051:t
1044:v
1000:.
964:(
944:(
921:(
891:(
861:(
829:.
802:.
276:)
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.