No. 18-7600
Johnathan Holt v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-procedure custody custody-analysis interrogation law-enforcement-interrogation miranda-custody miranda-v-arizona objective-analysis personal-mobility sixth-circuit sixth-circuit-interpretation totality-of-circumstances
Latest Conference:
2019-02-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
Under the objective analysis criteria established by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny, must a court evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including a lack of personal mobility, when deciding whether a person is in custody when interrogated by law enforcement?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a court must evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including a lack of personal mobility, when deciding whether a person is in custody when interrogated by law enforcement?
Docket Entries
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-02-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 27, 2019)
Attorneys
Johnathan Holt
Steven Richard Jaeger — The Jaeger Firm PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent