No. 19-6801
Marcos Palomar v. Raymond Madden, Warden
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure custodial-interrogation due-process fifth-amendment miranda-rights police-advisement police-interrogation right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2020-01-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), rights advisal is invalid if police indicate the right to appointed counsel prior to questioning is discretionary by advising an individual that an attorney "can" be appointed to him without cost if he cannot afford one, as opposed to providing the required advisal that counsel "will" be appointed in such a circumstance?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) rights advisal is invalid if police indicate the right to appointed counsel prior to questioning is discretionary
Docket Entries
2020-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-19
Waiver of right of respondent Raymond Madden, Warden to respond filed.
2019-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 2, 2020)
Attorneys
Marcos Palomar
Gary Paul Burcham — Burcham & Zugman, Petitioner
Raymond Madden, Warden